[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59498-59596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21020]



[[Page 59497]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 189

September 30, 2022

Part II





Department of the Treasury





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





Financial Crimes Enforcement Network





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





31 CFR Part 1010





Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements; Final Rule.

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 59498]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FinCEN is issuing a final rule requiring certain entities to 
file with FinCEN reports that identify two categories of individuals: 
the beneficial owners of the entity, and individuals who have filed an 
application with specified governmental authorities to create the 
entity or register it to do business. These regulations 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. These requirements are intended to 
help prevent and combat money laundering, terrorist financing, 
corruption, tax fraud, and other illicit activity, while minimizing the 
burden on entities doing business in the United States.

DATES: Effective date: These rules are effective January 1, 2024.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    Illicit actors frequently use corporate structures such as shell 
and front companies to obfuscate their identities and launder their 
ill-gotten gains through the U.S. financial system. Not only do such 
acts undermine U.S. national security, but they also threaten U.S. 
economic prosperity: shell and front companies can shield beneficial 
owners' identities and allow criminals to illegally access and transact 
in the U.S. economy, while creating an uneven playing field for small 
U.S. businesses engaged in legitimate activity.
    Millions of small businesses are formed within the United States 
each year as corporations, limited liability companies, or other 
corporate structures. These businesses play an essential and legitimate 
economic role. Small businesses are a backbone of the U.S. economy, 
accounting for a large share of U.S. economic activity, and driving 
U.S. innovation and competitiveness.\1\ In addition, U.S. small 
businesses generate jobs, and in 2021 created jobs at the highest rate 
on record.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See e.g., U.S. Small Business Administration, Small Business 
GDP 1998-2014 (Dec. 2018), available at https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/21060437/Small-Business-GDP-1998-2014.pdf.
    \2\ The White House, The Small Business Boom under the Biden-
Harris Administration (Apr. 2022), pp. 3-4, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/President-Biden-Small-Biz-Boom-full-report-2022.04.28.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Few jurisdictions in the United States, however, require legal 
entities to disclose information about their beneficial owners--the 
individuals who actually own or control an entity--or individuals who 
take the steps to create an entity. Historically, the U.S. Government's 
inability to mandate the collection of beneficial ownership information 
of corporate entities formed in the United States has been a 
vulnerability in the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the 
financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) framework. As stressed in the 2022 
National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing 
(the ``2022 Illicit Financing Strategy''), a lack of uniform beneficial 
ownership information reporting requirements at the time of entity 
formation or ownership change hinders the ability of (1) law 
enforcement to swiftly investigate those entities created and used to 
hide ownership for illicit purposes and (2) a regulated sector to 
mitigate risks.\3\ This lack of transparency creates opportunities for 
criminals, terrorists, and other illicit actors to remain anonymous 
while facilitating fraud, drug trafficking, corruption, tax evasion, 
organized crime, or other illicit activity through legal entities 
created in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), National 
Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (May 
2022), p. 12, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Strategy-for-Combating-Terrorist-and-Other-Illicit-Financing.pdf (``2022 Illicit Financing Strategy'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more than two decades, the U.S. Government has documented the 
use of legal entities by criminal actors to purchase real estate, 
conduct wire transfers, burnish the appearance of legitimacy when 
dealing with counterparties (including financial institutions), and 
control legitimate businesses for ultimately illicit ends, and has 
published extensively on this topic to raise awareness.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Treasury, U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment 
(Dec. 2005), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/246/mlta.pdf, and FinCEN, Advisory: FATF-VII Report on Money 
Laundering Typologies (Aug. 1996), available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/advisory/advissu4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent geopolitical events have reinforced the threat that abuse of 
corporate entities, including shell or front companies, by illicit 
actors and corrupt officials presents to the U.S. national security and 
the U.S. and international financial systems. For example, Russia's 
unlawful invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 further underscored that 
Russian elites, state-owned enterprises, and organized crime, as well 
as the Government of the Russian Federation have attempted to use U.S. 
and non-U.S. shell companies to evade sanctions imposed on Russia. 
Money laundering and sanctions evasion by these sanctioned Russians 
pose a significant threat to the national security of the United States 
and its partners and allies.
    In a recent example of how sanctioned Russian individuals used 
shell companies to avoid U.S. sanctions and other applicable laws, 
Spanish law enforcement executed a Spanish court order in the Spring of 
2022, freezing the Motor Yacht (M/Y) Tango (the ``Tango''), a 255-foot 
luxury yacht owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. 
Spanish authorities acted pursuant to a request from the U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ) following the issuance of a seizure 
warrant, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 
which alleged that the Tango was subject to forfeiture based on 
violations of U.S. bank fraud and money laundering statutes, as well as 
sanctions violations. The U.S. Government alleged that Vekselberg used 
shell companies to obfuscate his interest in the Tango to avoid bank 
oversight of U.S. dollar transactions related thereto.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Public Affairs, 
$90 Million Yacht of Sanctioned Russian Oligarch Viktor Vekselberg 
Seized by Spain at Request of United States (Apr. 4, 2022), 
available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/90-million-yacht-sanctioned-russian-oligarch-viktor-vekselberg-seized-spain-request-united.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the governments of Australia, Canada, the European 
Commission, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the 
United States launched the Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs 
(REPO) Task Force in March 2022, with the purpose of collecting and 
sharing information to take concrete actions, including sanctions, 
asset freezing, civil and criminal asset seizure, and criminal 
prosecution with respect to persons who supported the Russian invasion 
of Ukraine.\6\ In its June 29, 2022 Joint

[[Page 59499]]

Statement, the REPO Task Force noted that to identify sanctioned 
Russians who are beneficiaries of shell companies that held assets, 
REPO members relied on the use of registries where available, including 
beneficial ownership registries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Treasury, U.S. Departments of Treasury and Justice Launch 
Multilateral Russian Oligarch Task Force (Mar. 16, 2022), available 
at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0659.
    \7\ Treasury, Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force 
Joint Statement (June 29, 2022), available at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Domestic criminal actors also use corporate entities to obfuscate 
their illicit activities. In June 2021, the Department of Justice 
(``DOJ'') announced that an individual in Florida pled guilty to 
working with co-conspirators to steal $24 million of COVID-19 relief 
money by using synthetic identities and shell companies they had 
created years earlier to commit other bank fraud. The individual and 
his co-conspirators used established synthetic identities and 
associated shell companies to fraudulently apply for financial 
assistance under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). They applied 
for and received $24 million dollars in PPP relief. The money was paid 
to companies registered to the individual and his co-conspirators, as 
well as to companies registered to synthetic identities that he and his 
co-conspirators controlled.\8\ Similarly, in July 2022, the DOJ 
announced that a Virginia man was sentenced to 33 months in prison for 
his role in a conspiracy that involved the submission of at least 63 
fraudulent loan applications to obtain COVID-19 pandemic relief funds 
to which he and his co-defendants were not entitled. According to the 
DOJ press release, the individual and other defendants used multiple 
shell entities they controlled to apply for financial assistance under 
PPP and for Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) through the Small 
Business Administration and falsified Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 
tax forms submitted to lenders. Altogether, the defendants wrongfully 
obtained over $3 million in loan proceeds.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ DOJ, Office of Public Affairs, Defendant Pleads Guilty to 
Stealing $24 Million in COVID-19 Relief Money Through Fraud Scheme 
that Used Synthetic Identities (Jun. 29, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/defendant-pleads-guilty-stealing-24-million-covid-19-relief-money-through-fraud-scheme.
    \9\ DOJ, Office of Public Affairs, Member of $3M COVID-19 Loan 
Fraud Conspiracy Sentenced (Jul. 8, 2022), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/member-3m-covid-19-loan-fraud-conspiracy-sentenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Treasury (the ``Department'' or ``Treasury'') is 
committed to increasing transparency in the U.S. financial system and 
strengthening the U.S. AML/CFT framework. Deputy Secretary of the 
Treasury Wally Adeyemo noted in November 2021 that ``[w]e are already 
taking concrete steps to fight [. . .] corruption and make the U.S. 
economy--and the global economy--more fair. Among the most crucial of 
these steps is our work on beneficial ownership reporting. Kleptocrats, 
human rights abusers, and other corrupt actors often exploit complex 
and opaque corporate structures to hide and launder the proceeds of 
their corrupt activities. They use these shell companies to hide their 
true identities and the illicit sources of their funds. By requiring 
beneficial owners--that is, the people who actually own or control a 
company--to disclose their ownership, we can much better identify funds 
that come from corrupt sources or abusive means.'' \10\ As he further 
emphasized in December 2021, ``[c]orruption thrives in the financial 
shadows--in shell corporations that disguise owners' true identities, 
in offshore jurisdictions with lax anti-money laundering regulations, 
and in complex structures that allow the wealthy to hide their income 
from government authorities . . . . For too long, corrupt actors have 
made their home in the darkest corners of the global financial system, 
stashing the profits of their illegitimate activities in our blind 
spots. A major component of our anti-corruption work is about changing 
that--shining a spotlight on these areas and using what we find to 
deter and go after corruption.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Remarks by Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo 
at the Partnership to Combat Human Rights Abuse and Corruption (Nov. 
8, 2021), available at https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USTREAS/bulletins/2fb38f8.
    \11\ Remarks by Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo 
on Anti-Corruption at the Brookings Institution (Dec. 6, 2021), 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier this year, the Department issued the 2022 Illicit Financing 
Strategy.\12\ One of the priorities identified in the 2022 Illicit 
Financing Strategy is the need to increase transparency and close legal 
and regulatory gaps in the U.S. AML/CFT framework.\13\ This priority, 
and the supporting goals, emphasize the vulnerabilities posed by the 
abuse of legal entities, including the use of front and shell 
companies, which can enable a wide range of illicit finance threats: 
drug trafficking, fraud, small-sum funding of domestic violent 
extremism, and illicit procurement and sanctions evasion in support of 
weapons of mass destruction proliferation by U.S. adversaries. The 
strategy reflects a broader commitment to protect the U.S. financial 
system from the national security threats enabled by illicit finance, 
especially corruption. The Department's approach to combatting 
corruption will make our economy--and the global economy--stronger, 
fairer, and safer from criminals and national security threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 2022 Illicit Financing Strategy, supra note 3.
    \13\ Id. pp. 7-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's continued work to fight corruption includes 
implementing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which was enacted as 
part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.\14\ In December 2021, building 
on an earlier Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), FinCEN 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) \15\ to give the 
public an opportunity to review and comment on a proposed rule 
implementing the CTA's provisions requiring entities to report 
information about their beneficial owners and the individuals who 
created the entity (together, beneficial ownership information or BOI). 
FinCEN explained that the proposed rule would help protect the U.S. 
financial system from illicit use by making it more difficult for bad 
actors to conceal their financial activities through entities with 
opaque ownership structures. FinCEN also explained that the proposed 
reporting obligations would provide essential information to law 
enforcement and others to help prevent corrupt actors, terrorists, and 
proliferators from hiding money or other property in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The CTA is Title LXIV of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 
116-283 (Jan. 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.
    \15\ 86 FR 69920 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. efforts to collect BOI will lend U.S. support to the growing 
international consensus to enhance beneficial ownership transparency, 
and will spur similar efforts by foreign jurisdictions. At least 30 
countries have already implemented some form of central register of 
beneficial ownership information, and more than 100 countries, 
including the United States, have committed to implementing beneficial 
ownership transparency reforms.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.openownership.org/en/map/ for a graphic 
identifying these countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering all public comments, FinCEN is now 
issuing final

[[Page 59500]]

regulations regarding the reporting of beneficial ownership 
information. The regulations carefully balance the need to protect and 
strengthen U.S. national security, while minimizing the burden on small 
businesses and reporting entities. Specifically, the regulations 
implement the CTA's requirement that reporting companies submit to 
FinCEN a report containing their BOI. As required by the CTA, these 
regulations are designed to minimize the burden on reporting companies, 
particularly small businesses, and to ensure that the information 
collected is accurate, complete, and highly useful. The regulations 
will help protect U.S. national security, provide critical information 
to law enforcement, and promote financial transparency. This final rule 
implementing the CTA's beneficial ownership reporting requirements 
represents the culmination of years of efforts by Congress, Treasury, 
national security and law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders 
to bolster corporate transparency by addressing U.S. deficiencies in 
beneficial ownership transparency noted by the Financial Action Task 
Force (FATF),\17\ Congress, law enforcement, and others. The 
regulations address, among other things: who must file; when they must 
file; and what information they must provide. Collecting this 
information and providing access to law enforcement, the intelligence 
community, regulators, and financial institutions will diminish the 
ability of illicit actors to obfuscate their activities through the use 
of anonymous shell and front companies. In developing the proposed 
regulation, FinCEN aimed to minimize burdens on reporting companies, 
including small businesses, to the extent practicable. FinCEN estimates 
that it would cost the majority of reporting companies $85.14 to 
prepare and submit an initial BOI report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Beneficial Ownership of Entities

i. Overview
    Legal entities such as corporations, limited liability companies, 
and partnerships, and legal arrangements like 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, and generate investments, and they 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 to 
enable those who threaten U.S. national security to access and transact 
in the U.S. economy. The United States is a popular jurisdiction for 
legal entity formation because of the ease with which a legal entity 
can be created, the minimal amount of information required to do so in 
most U.S. states,\18\ and the investment opportunities the United 
States presents. The number of legal entities currently operating in 
the United States is difficult to estimate with certainty, but Congress 
recently found that more than two million corporations and limited 
liability companies are being created under the laws of the states each 
year.\19\ According to Global Financial Integrity, a policy 
organization focused on addressing illicit finance and corruption, more 
public and anonymous corporations are created in the United States than 
in any other jurisdiction.\20\ 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 in the tens of millions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For simplicity, in the remainder of this preamble 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.
    \19\ CTA, Section 6402(1). FinCEN's analysis estimating such 
entities is included in the regulatory analysis in Section V of this 
NPRM.
    \20\ Global Financial Integrity, The Library Card Project: The 
Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the United States (March 
2019) (``GFI Report''), available at https://gfintegrity.org/report/the-library-card-project/. 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.
    \21\ In the regulatory analysis later in this final rule, FinCEN 
estimates that there will be at least 32.6 million ``reporting 
companies'' (entities that meet the core definition of a ``reporting 
company'' and are not exempt) in existence when the proposed rule 
becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States does not currently have a centralized or complete 
store of information about who owns and operates legal entities within 
the United States. The data readily available to law enforcement are 
limited to the information required to be reported when a legal entity 
is created at the state or Tribal level, unless an entity opens an 
account at a financial institution required to collect certain BOI 
pursuant to the Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Rule.\22\ Though state- 
and Tribal-level entity formation laws vary, most jurisdictions do not 
require the identification of an entity's individual beneficial owners 
at or after the time of formation. Additionally, the vast majority of 
states require little to no disclosure of contact information or other 
information about an entity's officers or others who control the 
entity.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 31 CFR 1010.230. Even then, any BOI a financial institution 
collects is not systematically reported to any central repository.
    \23\ See CTA, Section 6402(2) (``[M]ost or all States do not 
require information about the beneficial owners of corporations, 
limited liability companies, or other similar entities formed under 
the laws of the State''); U.S. Government Accountability Office, 
Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and 
Available (Apr. 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 
(Jun. 2019), available at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/company%20formation/nass-business-entity-info-collected-june2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Benefits of BOI Reporting
    Access to BOI reported under the CTA would significantly aid 
efforts to protect the U.S. financial system from illicit use. It would 
impede illicit actors' ability to use legal entities to conceal 
proceeds from criminal acts that undermine U.S. national security and 
foreign policy interests, such as corruption, human smuggling, drug and 
arms trafficking, and terrorist financing. For example, BOI can add 
critical data to financial analyses in law enforcement and tax 
investigations. It can also provide essential information to the 
intelligence and national 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

[[Page 59501]]

money in the United States through anonymous shell or front 
companies.\24\ Broadly, and critically, BOI is crucial to identifying 
linkages between potential illicit actors and opaque business entities, 
including shell companies. Shell companies are typically non-publicly 
traded corporations, limited liability companies, or other types of 
entities that have no physical presence beyond a mailing address, 
generate little to no independent economic value,\25\ and generally are 
created without disclosing their beneficial owners. Shell companies can 
be used to conduct financial transactions while concealing true 
beneficial owners' involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A front company generates legitimate business proceeds to 
commingle with illicit earnings. See Treasury, National Money 
Laundering Risk Assessment (2018), p. 29, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-18.pdf.
    \25\ FinCEN Advisory, FIN-2017-A003, Advisory to Financial 
Institutions and Real Estate Firms and Professionals (Aug. 22, 
2017), p. 3, 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 (Nov. 2006), p. 4, available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/LLCAssessment_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2021, some of the principal authors of the CTA in the Senate and 
U.S. House of Representatives wrote to the Department, explaining 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 . . . [To do 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.'' \26\ 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.'' \27\ The integration of BOI reported 
pursuant to the CTA with the current data collected under the BSA, and 
other relevant government data, is expected to significantly further 
efforts to identify illicit actors and combat 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, including 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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 (Nov. 
3, 2021), available at https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/11.04_waters_brown_maloney_letter_on_cta.pdf (emphasis 
in original).
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See 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 (Sept. 24, 2019) (``For 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.''), available at https://www.fincen.gov/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-fincen-director-kenneth-blanco-delivered-federal-identity-fedid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the preamble to the NPRM, for more than two decades 
FinCEN and the broader Treasury Department have been raising awareness 
about the role of shell companies, the way they can be used to 
obfuscate beneficial ownership, and their role in facilitating criminal 
activity--pointing out, for example, that shell companies have enabled 
the movement of billions of dollars across borders by unknown actors 
and have facilitated money laundering or terrorist financing.
    FinCEN took its first major regulatory step toward identifying 
beneficial owners when it initiated the 2016 CDD rulemaking process in 
March 2012 by issuing an ANPRM,\29\ followed by an NPRM in August 
2014.\30\ FinCEN finalized the CDD Rule in May 2016, and financial 
institutions began collecting beneficial ownership information under 
the 2016 CDD Rule in May 2018.\31\ The 2016 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 2016 CDD 
Rule noted that, among other things, BOI collected by financial 
institutions pursuant to the 2016 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 the Department's broad strategy to enhance financial 
transparency of legal entities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 77 FR 13046 (Mar. 5, 2012).
    \30\ 79 FR 45151 (Aug. 4, 2014).
    \31\ 81 FR 29397 (May 11, 2016).
    \32\ 81 FR 29399-29402 (May 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2016, the FATF issued an 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. AML/CFT regime.\33\ 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.'' \34\ Following 
publication of the 2016 FATF Report, the Assistant Attorney General for 
the Criminal Division and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the 
National Security Division at the Department of Justice emphasized 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.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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.
    \34\ Id. at 153.
    \35\ DOJ, 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 
(Dec. 1, 2016), available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/financial-action-task-force-report-recognizes-us-anti-money-laundering-and-counter.

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

[[Page 59502]]

    While the 2016 CDD Rule increased transparency by requiring covered 
financial institutions to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the 
time of an account opening, it did not address the collection of BOI at 
the time of a legal entity's creation. BOI collected at the time of a 
legal entity's creation provides additional insight into the original 
beneficial owners of the entity.
    Following the issuance of the 2016 FATF Report, officials in the 
Department and at the Department of Justice remained committed to 
working with Congress on beneficial ownership legislation that would 
require companies to report adequate, accurate, and current BOI at the 
time of a legal entity's creation. In addition, between initial 
congressional efforts to require beneficial ownership reporting through 
the Senate-proposed 2008 Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement 
Assistance Act, and the 2016 FATF Report, predecessor legislation to 
the CTA 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) followed 
the 2016 FATF Report. In November 2017 testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 
Jennifer Fowler, head of the U.S. FATF delegation at the time of 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 2016 CDD Rule was an 
important step forward, more work remained to be done with Congress to 
find a solution that would involve collecting BOI when a legal entity 
is created.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Treasury, Testimony of Jennifer Fowler, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, Senate 
Judiciary Committee (Nov. 28, 2017), available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Fowler%20Testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the years, federal officials have 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 BOI 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.'' \37\ In December 2019, then-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.'' \38\ He also highlighted how this gap 
had been addressed in part through the 2016 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.'' 
\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ DOJ, 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 
Feb. 6, 2018, p. 3, available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/02-06-18%20Day%20Testimony.pdf.
    \38\ FinCEN, Prepared Remarks of FinCEN Director Kenneth A. 
Blanco, delivered at the American Bankers Association/American Bar 
Association Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference, (Dec. 10, 
2019), available at https://www.fincen.gov/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-fincen-director-kenneth-blanco-delivered-american-bankers.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has consistently emphasized the importance of 
addressing the risks posed by the lack of comprehensive beneficial 
ownership reporting, including in the 2018 and 2022 National Money 
Laundering Risk Assessments, and in the 2018 and 2020 National 
Strategies for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (``2018 
Illicit Financing Strategy'' and ``2020 Illicit Financing Strategy'' 
respectively).\40\ In the 2018 National Money Laundering Risk 
Assessment, the Department highlighted cases in which shell and front 
companies in the United States were used to disguise the proceeds of 
Medicare and Medicaid fraud, trade-based money laundering, and drug 
trafficking, among other crimes.\41\ In its 2022 National Money 
Laundering Risk Assessment, Treasury reiterated that ``bad actors 
consistently use a number of specific structures to disguise criminal 
proceeds, and U.S. law enforcement agencies have had no consistent way 
to obtain information about the beneficial owners of these entities. 
The ease with which companies can be incorporated under state law and 
the lack of information generally required about the company's owners 
or activities lead to limited transparency. Bad actors take advantage 
of these lax requirements to set up shell companies . . .'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk 
Assessment (2022), p. 37, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Money-Laundering-Risk-Assessment.pdf; 
Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (2018), pp. 28-
30, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-18.pdf; 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; 
Treasury, National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other 
Illicit Financing (2020), pp. 13-14, 27, 34, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf.
    \41\ Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (2018), 
pp. 28-30, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-18.pdf.
    \42\ Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (Feb. 
2022), p. 37, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Money-Laundering-Risk-Assessment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's 2018 Illicit Financing Strategy flagged the use of 
shell companies by Russian organized crime groups in the United States, 
as well as by the Iranian government to obfuscate the source of funds 
and hide its involvement in efforts to generate revenue.\43\ The 2020 
Illicit Financing Strategy cited as one of the most significant 
vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system the lack of a requirement 
to collect BOI at the time of legal entity creation and after changes 
in ownership.\44\ Building on the two previous Illicit Financing 
Strategies, Treasury emphasized in its 2022 Illicit Financing Strategy 
that combating the pernicious impact of illicit finance in the U.S. 
financial system, economy, and society is integral to strengthening 
U.S. national security and prosperity. The 2022 Illicit Financing 
Strategy observed, however, that while the United States has made 
substantial progress in addressing this challenge, the U.S. AML/CFT 
regime must adapt to an evolving threat environment, and structural and 
technological changes in

[[Page 59503]]

financial services and markets. In order to succeed in this critical 
fight, the 2022 Illicit Financing Strategy detailed how the United 
States is striving to strengthen laws, regulations, processes, 
technologies, and people so that the U.S. AML/CFT regime remains a 
model of effectiveness and innovation, noting that implementing the BOI 
reporting and collection regime envisioned by the CTA was essential to 
closing legal and regulatory gaps that allow criminals and other 
illicit actors to move funds and purchase U.S. assets anonymously.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 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.
    \44\ 2020 Illicit Financing Strategy, p. 12, available at 
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf.
    \45\ See generally, Treasury, National Strategy for Combating 
Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (May 2022), available at 
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Strategy-for-Combating-Terrorist-and-Other-Illicit-Financing.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress recognized the threat posed by shell companies and other 
opaque ownership structures when it passed the CTA as part of the 
broader Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (the ``AML Act'').\46\ 
Congress explained that among 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.'' \47\ 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 revenue and transfer funds in 
support of illicit conduct.\48\ Additionally, the 2021 United States 
Strategy on Countering Corruption emphasized the importance of curbing 
illicit finance and strengthening efforts to fight corruption and other 
illicit financial activity, including through greater beneficial 
ownership transparency.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 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).
    \47\ Id. section 6002(5)(A)-(B).
    \48\ FinCEN, Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing 
of Terrorism Priorities (Jun. 30, 2021), pp. 11-12, available at 
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/AML_CFT%20Priorities%20(June%2030%2C%202021).pdf.
    \49\ The White House, United States Strategy on Countering 
Corruption (Dec. 2021), pp. 10-11, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/United-States-Strategy-on-Countering-Corruption.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. National Security and Law Enforcement Implications
    Although many legal entities are used for legitimate purposes, they 
can also be misused to facilitate criminal activity or threaten our 
national security. As Congress explained in the CTA, ``malign 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, harming the national security interests 
of the United States and allies of the United States.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ CTA, section 6402(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, such legal entities are used to obscure the proceeds 
of bribery and large-scale corruption, money laundering, narcotics 
offenses, terrorist or proliferation financing, and human trafficking, 
and to conduct other illegal activities, including sanctions evasion. 
The ability of bad 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.
    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. The Department 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.'' \51\ The 
Drug Enforcement Administration also recently highlighted that drug 
trafficking organizations (DTOs) commonly 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.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Treasury, National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and 
Other Illicit Financing (2020), pp. 13-14, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf. The 2022 Illicit Financing Strategy noted 
that ``[t]he passage of the CTA was a critical step forward in 
closing a long-standing gap and strengthening the U.S. AML/CFT 
regime'' and that ``[a]ddressing the gap in collection at the time 
of entity formation is the most important AML/CFT regulatory action 
for the U.S. government.'' Treasury, National Strategy for Combating 
Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (May 2022), p. 8, available at 
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Strategy-for-Combating-Terrorist-and-Other-Illicit-Financing.pdf.
    \52\ Drug Enforcement Administration, 2020 Drug Enforcement 
Administration National Drug Threat Assessment (``DEA 2020 NDTA'') 
(2020), pp. 87-88, available at https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/DIR-008-21%202020%20National%20Drug%20Threat%20Assessment_WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM highlighted specific examples of significant criminal 
investigations into the use of shell companies to launder money or 
evade sanctions imposed by the United States. For example, the 
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and 
the IRS Criminal Investigation Division investigated the alleged 
misappropriation of more than $4.5 billion in funds belonging to 
1Malaysia Development Berhad that were intended to be used to improve 
the well-being of the Malaysian people but were allegedly laundered 
through a series of complex transactions and shell companies with bank 
accounts located in the United States and abroad. Included in the 
forfeiture complaint were multiple luxury properties in New York City, 
Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, and London, mostly titled in the name of 
shell companies.\53\ In another case, 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 California, Canada, Hong Kong, and the United

[[Page 59504]]

Arab Emirates.\54\ 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 to disguise hundreds of millions of dollars' 
worth of transactions on behalf of Iran.\55\ 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.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 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.
    \54\ DOJ (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 (Mar. 19, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/iranian-nationals-charged-conspiring-evade-us-sanctions-iran-disguising-300-million.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the U.S. Government has tools capable of obtaining some 
BOI, 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. As Congress 
explained in the CTA, ``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.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ CTA, Section 6402(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Kenneth A. Blanco, then-Director of FinCEN, observed in 
testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs, 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.'' \58\ Steven M. D'Antuono, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal Investigative 
Division, elaborated on these difficulties, testifying 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.'' \59\ He 
explained that if investigators obtain ownership records, they 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.'' \60\ By layering ownership and 
financial transactions, professional launderers and others involved in 
illicit finance can effectively delay investigations into their 
activity.\61\ D'Antuono 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.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 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.
    \59\ 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.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, in July 2022, Andrew Adams, the Director of the DOJ-
led Task Force KleptoCapture,\63\ remarked that ``as a core challenge 
to be met through [the Task Force KleptoCapture's] work--past action 
means that the fruits of corruption that might be found in the United 
States are likely to be buried deep beneath layers of sham owners and 
shell companies--while the most obvious and ostentatious forms of 
kleptocracy will be located outside of the United States, as the world 
has already seen.'' \64\ He also noted that ``the primary obstacle to 
identifying illicit proceeds and the actors for whom, and by whom, 
those funds are transmitted, is the use by criminal networks of shell 
corporations found in multiple, often offshore and relatively non-
cooperative, jurisdictions . . . . The Task Force is therefore 
directing particular attention to attempts by foreign individuals and 
entities, including off-shore shell corporations, to move funds through 
correspondent accounts at U.S. banks.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Task Force KleptoCapture is an interagency law enforcement 
endeavor led by Justice Department prosecutors and dedicated to 
enforcing the sweeping sanctions and export restrictions that the 
United States has imposed, along with allies and partners, in 
response to Russia's unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine. DOJ, 
Statement of Andrew Adams, Director, KleptoCapture Task Force, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United 
States Senate, for a Hearing Entitled ``KleptoCapture: Aiding 
Ukraine through Forfeiture of Russian Oligarchs' Illicit Assets 
(Jul. 19, 2022), p. 1, available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20-%20Adams%20-%202022-07-19.pdf.
    \64\ Id. at 2.
    \65\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, a 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. An investigator also needs to determine the proper 
recipient of the subpoena and coordinate service, which raises 
additional complications in cases where excessive layers of corporate 
structures hide the identity of the ultimate beneficial owners. In some 
cases, however, BOI records still may not be attainable because they do 
not exist. For example, because most states do not require the 
disclosure of BOI when creating or registering a legal 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 either.
    FinCEN's other existing regulatory tools also have limitations. The 
2016 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.\66\ But the rule

[[Page 59505]]

provides only a partial solution: The information about beneficial 
owners of certain U.S. entities seeking to open an account at a covered 
financial institution only covers beneficial owners of a legal entity 
at the time a new account is opened, is not reported to the Government, 
and is not immediately available to law enforcement, intelligence, or 
national security agencies. Other FinCEN authorities offer only 
temporary and targeted tools and do not provide law enforcement or 
others the ability to quickly and effectively follow the money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The 2016 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shell companies, in particular, demonstrate how critical it is for 
investigators to have access to a centralized database of BOI. 
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.'' \67\ 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 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.'' 
\68\ He continued, ``[t]hese 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.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Treasury, National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and 
Other Illicit Financing (2020), p. 14, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf.
    \68\ 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.
    \69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the same hearing in front of the Senate's Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in May 2019, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Director 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.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 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.'' \71\ 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 us 
all at risk.'' \72\ 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.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Steven T. Mnuchin (Secretary, Department of the Treasury), 
Transcript: Hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2021 Budget 
before the Senate Committee on Finance (Feb. 12, 2020), p. 25, 
available at https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/45146.pdf.
    \72\ Senator Sherrod Brown, National Defense Authorization Act, 
Congressional Record 166:208 (Dec. 9, 2020), p. S7311, available at 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-12-09/pdf/CREC-2020-12-09.pdf.
    \73\ 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-c8254509a6f3/13D55FBEE293CAAF52B7317 
C5CA7E44C.senators-cta-comment-letter-05.04.2021.pdf.

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

[[Page 59506]]

    The Department's 2022 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment 
noted that lack of timely access to BOI remained a key weakness within 
the U.S. AML/CFT regulatory regime and emphasized that the ``new U.S. 
requirements for the disclosure of beneficial ownership information to 
the federal government, once fully implemented, are expected to help 
facilitate law enforcement investigations and make it more difficult 
for illicit actors to hide behind corporate entities registered in the 
United States or those foreign entities registered to do business in 
the United States.'' \74\ As Secretary Yellen underscored last year, 
there are ``far too many financial shadows in America that give 
corruption cover'' and the Department ``must play a leading role'' in 
shining a spotlight on them, increasing transparency in beneficial 
ownership information, and making it more difficult to hide and launder 
ill-gotten gains.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (2022), 
pp. 35-37, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Money-Laundering-Risk-Assessment.pdf.
    \75\ Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen at the 
Summit for Democracy (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. 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 Group of Seven (G7), Group of Twenty (G20),\76\ 
FATF, and the Egmont Group,\77\ the global community has worked to 
establish a set of mutual standards to enhance beneficial ownership 
transparency across 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. The 2016 FATF report concluded that 
``lack of timely access to adequate, accurate and current beneficial 
ownership (BO) information remains one of the fundamental gaps in the 
U.S. context'' and ``overall, the measures to prevent the misuse of 
legal persons are inadequate.'' \78\ The report identified the lack of 
beneficial ownership as one among a number of higher-risk issues 
deserving special focus in the report, and referenced prior U.S. risk 
assessment processes that concluded it was a ``serious deficiency.'' 
\79\ As noted in the 2021 United States Strategy on Countering 
Corruption, because the United States ``is the largest economy in the 
international financial system, [it] bears particular responsibility to 
address [its] own regulatory deficiencies, including in [its] AML/CFT 
regime, in order to strengthen global efforts to limit the proceeds of 
corruption and other illicit financial activity.'' \80\ The 
Administration has further recognized the importance of such global 
efforts by committing support through the Presidential Initiative for 
Democratic Renewal to bolster partners' beneficial ownership 
transparency frameworks.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See, e.g., United States G-8 Action Plan for Transparency 
of Company Ownership and Control (Jun. 2013), available at 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 (Jul. 2013), available at 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.
    \77\ FATF 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.
    \78\ See FATF, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist 
Financing Measures United States Mutual Evaluation Report (2016), 
pp. 4, 10, available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/MER-United-States-2016.pdf.
    \79\ Id., at 22.
    \80\ The White House, United States Strategy on Countering 
Corruption (Dec. 2021), p. 11, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/United-States-Strategy-on-Countering-Corruption.pdf.
    \81\ See The White House, Fact Sheet: Announcing the 
Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal (Dec. 9, 2021), 
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/09/fact-sheet-announcing-the-presidential-initiative-for-democratic-renewal/ (announcing support ``[t]o 
enhance partner countries' ability to build resilience against 
kleptocracy and illicit finance, including by supporting beneficial 
ownership disclosure, strengthening government contracting and 
procurement regulations, and improving anti-corruption investigation 
and disruption efforts'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current lack of a federal BOI reporting requirement and 
centralized BOI database makes the United States a jurisdiction of 
choice for those wishing to create shell companies that hide their 
ultimate beneficiaries. This makes it easier for bad actors to launder 
illicit proceeds through the U.S. economy. 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 lack of a centralized BOI reporting 
obligation to park their ill-gotten gains in a stable jurisdiction, 
thereby exposing the United States to serious national security 
threats.
    Congress recognized that the lack of a centralized BOI reporting 
requirement in the United States constitutes a weak link in the 
integrity of the global financial system. In passing the CTA, Congress 
explained that federal legislation providing for the collection of BOI 
was ``needed to . . . bring the United States into compliance with 
international [AML/CFT] standards.'' \82\ 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 many jurisdictions, including the United States, 
still have work to do to meet the standards for beneficial ownership 
transparency. As the FATF noted in its recent public statement 
regarding amendments to its standard on beneficial ownership 
transparency of legal entities, ``[m]utual [e]valuations show a 
generally insufficient level of effectiveness in combating the misuse 
of legal persons for money laundering and terrorist financing globally, 
and [show] that countries need to do more to implement the current FATF 
standards promptly, fully and effectively.'' \83\ Establishing the 
requirements to report BOI to a centralized database at FinCEN is a 
critical step in the Department's decades-long efforts to protect the 
U.S. and global financial systems from illicit

[[Page 59507]]

actors and to combat money laundering and corruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ CTA, Section 6402(5)(E).
    \83\ FATF, Public Statement on Revisions to R.24 (Mar. 4, 2022), 
available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/r24-statement-march-2022.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Corporate Transparency Act

    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 to the extent 
practicable. The section requires certain types of domestic and foreign 
entities, called ``reporting companies,'' to submit specified BOI to 
FinCEN. In certain circumstances, FinCEN is authorized to share this 
BOI with government agencies, financial institutions, and financial 
regulators, subject to appropriate protocols.\84\ The statutory 
requirement for reporting companies to submit BOI takes effect ``on the 
effective date of the regulations'' implementing the reporting 
obligations.\85\ The section provides that reporting companies created 
or registered to do business after the effective date will need to 
submit the requisite information to FinCEN at the time of creation or 
registration, while reporting companies in existence before the 
effective date will have a specified period in which to report.\86\ The 
CTA's reporting requirements generally apply to smaller, more lightly 
regulated entities that are less likely to be subject to any other BOI 
reporting requirements. By contrast, the CTA exempts certain categories 
of larger, more heavily regulated entities from its reporting 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See generally 31 U.S.C. 5336(b), (c).
    \85\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(5).
    \86\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B), (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute prescribes the basic outline of reporting requirements. 
It requires reporting companies to submit to FinCEN, for each 
beneficial owner and each individual who files an application to form a 
domestic entity or register a foreign entity to do business (company 
applicant), four pieces of information--the individual's full legal 
name, date of birth, current residential or business street address, 
and a unique identifying number from an acceptable identification 
document (e.g., a passport)--or the individual's FinCEN identifier. 
This readily accessible information should not be unduly burdensome for 
individuals to produce, or for reporting companies to collect and 
submit to FinCEN.\87\ A FinCEN identifier is a unique identifying 
number that FinCEN will issue to individuals or reporting companies 
upon request, subject to certain conditions. For individuals, FinCEN 
will issue a FinCEN identifier if an individual submits to FinCEN the 
same four pieces of identifying information as would be required in a 
BOI report.\88\ For reporting companies, FinCEN will issue a FinCEN 
identifier only at or after the time the reporting company files an 
initial report.\89\ As explained in Section III.B.vi. below, FinCEN 
proposed to allow a reporting company may use an individual or entity's 
FinCEN identifier in lieu of providing individual pieces of BOI in 
certain instances, and FinCEN has decided to revise and resubmit that 
portion of the proposed rule for additional public comment.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2).
    \88\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(B), (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the sensitivity of the reportable information, the CTA 
imposes strict confidentiality, security, and access restrictions on 
the data FinCEN collects. FinCEN is authorized to disclose reported BOI 
in limited circumstances to a statutorily defined group of governmental 
authorities and financial institutions. Federal agencies, for example, 
may only obtain access to BOI when it will be used in furtherance of a 
national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activity.\91\ For 
state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, ``a court of 
competent jurisdiction'' must authorize the agency to seek BOI as part 
of a criminal or civil investigation.\92\ Foreign government access is 
limited to requests made by foreign law enforcement agencies, 
prosecutors, and judges in specified circumstances.\93\ With the 
consent of the reporting company, FinCEN may also disclose BOI to 
financial institutions to help them comply with customer due diligence 
requirements under applicable law.\94\ Finally, a financial 
institution's regulator can obtain BOI that has been provided to a 
financial institution it regulates for the purpose of performing 
regulatory oversight that is specific to that financial 
institution.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(i)(I).
    \92\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(i)(II).
    \93\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(ii).
    \94\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(iii).
    \95\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that BOI collected under 31 U.S.C. 5336 is only used for 
these statutorily described purposes, the CTA includes specific 
restrictions, requirements, and security protocols, and it authorizes 
FinCEN to implement this security framework. FinCEN intends to address 
the regulatory requirements related to access to information reported 
pursuant to the CTA through a future rulemaking process ahead of this 
final rule's effective date.
    The CTA also requires that FinCEN revise portions of the 2016 CDD 
Rule within one year after the effective date of the BOI reporting 
rule.\96\ In particular, the CTA directs FinCEN to rescind the specific 
beneficial ownership identification and verification requirements of 31 
CFR 1010.230(b)-(j), while retaining the general requirement for 
financial institutions to identify and verify the beneficial owners of 
legal entity customers under 31 CFR 1010.230(a).\97\ The CTA 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 
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 to reduce unnecessary or duplicative burdens on financial 
institutions and legal entity customers.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(1).
    \97\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(2) (``[T]he Secretary of the Treasury 
shall rescind paragraphs (b) through (j) of section 1010.230 of 
title 31 . . . upon the effective date of the revised ruled 
promulgated under this subsection. . . . Nothing in this section may 
be construed to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to repeal 
the requirement that financial institutions identify and verify 
beneficial owners of legal entity customers under section 
1010.230(a) . . . .'').
    \98\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(1)(A)-(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN intends to revise the 2016 CDD Rule \99\ through a future 
rulemaking process that will provide the public with an opportunity to 
comment on the effect of the final provisions of the BOI reporting rule 
on financial institutions' customer due diligence obligations. The 
rulemaking process will also allow FinCEN to reach informed conclusions 
about how to align the 2016 CDD Rule with this final rule and the 
future BOI access rule.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Final Rule, Customer Due Diligence Requirements for 
Financial Institutions, 81 FR 29398-29402 (May 11, 2016).
    \100\ The access rule would implement 31 U.S.C. 5336(c) and 
explain which parties would have access to BOI, under what 
circumstances, as well as how the parties would generally be 
required to handle and safeguard BOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the CTA requires the Inspector General of the Department 
of the Treasury to provide public contact information to receive 
external comments or complaints regarding the beneficial ownership 
information notification and collection process or regarding the 
accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of such information.\101\ The 
Department of the Treasury's Office of Inspector General has 
established the following email inbox to receive such

[[Page 59508]]

comments or complaints: [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In December 2021, building on a previously issued ANPRM,\102\ 
FinCEN published an NPRM proposing BOI reporting requirements. The 
proposed regulations described 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 would include 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 would be any entity created under the law of 
a foreign jurisdiction that is registered to do business within the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 86 FR 69920 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations also included twenty-three statutory 
exemptions from the definition of reporting company under the CTA. The 
CTA includes an option for the Secretary of the Treasury, with the 
written concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, to exclude by regulation additional types of 
entities. FinCEN, however, did not propose to exempt additional types 
of entities beyond those specified by the CTA.
    The proposed regulations more specifically identified who would be 
a beneficial owner and who would be a company applicant. Under the 
proposed rule, a beneficial owner would include any individual who 
meets at least one of two criteria: (1) the individual exercises 
substantial control over the reporting company; or (2) the individual 
owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a 
reporting company. The proposed regulations defined the terms 
``substantial control'' and ``ownership interest'' and proposed rules 
for determining whether an individual owns or controls 25 percent of 
the ownership interests of a reporting company. The proposed 
regulations also, following the CTA, defined five types of individuals 
exempt from the definition of beneficial owner.
    In addition, the proposed regulations defined who would be a 
company applicant. In the case of a domestic reporting company, a 
company applicant would be the individual who files the document that 
creates the entity. In the case of a foreign reporting company, a 
company applicant would be the individual who files the document that 
first registers the entity to do business in the United States. The 
proposed regulations specified that anyone who directs or controls the 
filing of an entity creation or registration document by another would 
also be a company applicant.
    Under the proposed regulations, the time at which a report must be 
filed would depend on: when the reporting company was created or 
registered; and whether the report is an initial report, an updated 
report providing new information, or a report correcting erroneous 
information in a previously filed report of any kind. Domestic 
reporting companies that were created, or foreign reporting companies 
that were registered to do business in the United States for the first 
time, before the effective date of the final regulations would have one 
year from the effective date of the final regulations to file their 
initial 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 of creation or first registration, 
respectively. If there was a change in the information previously 
reported to FinCEN under these regulations, reporting companies would 
have 30 calendar days to file an updated report under the proposed 
regulations. Finally, if a reporting company had filed information that 
was inaccurate at the time of filing, the proposed regulations would 
have required the reporting company 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 described the specific information 
that a reporting company would need to submit to FinCEN about: the 
reporting company itself, and each beneficial owner and company 
applicant. The required information about the reporting company would 
include basic information identifying the reporting company.\103\ The 
required information about beneficial owners and company applicants 
would include items of information specifically required by the CTA--
the name, date of birth, address, and document number of a specified 
type of identification document--for each beneficial owner and company 
applicant. In lieu of providing specific required information about an 
individual, the reporting company could provide a unique identifier 
issued by FinCEN called a FinCEN identifier. The proposed regulations 
described how a FinCEN identifier would be obtained and when it could 
be used. The proposed regulations also encouraged, but did not require, 
reporting companies to provide taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) 
of beneficial owners and company applicants to support efforts by 
government authorities and financial institutions to prevent money 
laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activities such as 
tax evasion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ As FinCEN explained in the NPRM, without this information, 
``FinCEN would have no ability to determine the entity that is 
associated with each reported beneficial owner or company 
applicant,'' frustrating Congress's purpose in enacting the CTA. 86 
FR 69920, 69931 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed regulations elaborated on the CTA's penalty 
provisions. The CTA makes it 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 described persons that would be subject to this 
provision and what acts (or failures to act) would constitute a 
violation.

D. The Beneficial Ownership Secure System (BOSS)

    The CTA directs the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain BOI ``in 
a secure, nonpublic database, using information security methods and 
techniques that are appropriate to protect non-classified information 
security systems at the highest security level. . . .'' \104\ To 
implement this requirement, FinCEN has been developing the Beneficial 
Ownership Secure System (BOSS) to receive, store, and maintain BOI. One 
commenter asked whether FinCEN intends to allow reporting companies to 
submit BOI reports in paper form, and if so, whether FinCEN would adopt 
a ``postmark rule,'' whereby a BOI report would be considered timely 
filed if the envelope is properly addressed, has enough postage, is 
postmarked, and is deposited in the mail by the due date. FinCEN 
expects that BOI reports will be submitted electronically through an 
online interface, but understands there may be certain circumstances in 
which a reporting company is unable to file through this interface. 
FinCEN is continuing to consider how to address such cases, as well as 
other modalities for filing through the online interface, such as 
``batch'' filing or other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ CTA, Section 6402(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BOSS will be secured to a Federal Information Security 
Management Act ``High'' compliance level, the highest information 
security protection level

[[Page 59509]]

under the Act. FinCEN intends to issue proposed regulations governing 
the disclosure of BOI to authorized recipients and requiring, among 
other things, that recipients maintain the highest security safeguards 
practicable. As required by the CTA, the proposed regulations will 
ensure that Treasury has taken all appropriate steps to safeguard BOI 
and to disclose BOI only for authorized purposes consistent with the 
CTA.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ All reports filed under the CTA and its implementing 
regulations will be exempt from search and disclosure under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). See 31 U.S.C. 5319; 31 CFR 
1010.960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Comments Received

    In response to the NPRM, FinCEN received over 240 comments. 
Submissions came from a broad array of individuals and organizations, 
including Members of Congress, government officials, groups 
representing small business interests, corporate transparency advocacy 
groups, the financial industry and trade associations representing its 
members, law enforcement representatives, and other interested groups 
and individuals.
    In general, many commenters expressed support for the CTA and the 
proposed regulations. These commenters viewed the proposed regulations 
as an important step toward protecting the integrity of the U.S. 
financial system and a significant contribution to efforts to combat 
illicit financial activity and global corruption more broadly. These 
commenters supported the approach taken in the proposed rule, of 
avoiding loopholes and opportunities for evasion, and a few of these 
commenters expressed concerns about the illicit finance risks 
associated with certain types of legal entities. Supportive commenters 
agreed that FinCEN's proposed approach of defining certain key terms 
broadly, including in some ways that differ from the 2016 CDD Rule, is 
aligned with the statutory text and congressional intent in passing the 
CTA.
    FinCEN agrees with many commenters that implementation of a 
beneficial ownership registry that is highly useful to law enforcement 
and the intelligence community will help to prevent bad actors from 
hiding behind opaque corporate structures, including anonymous shell 
and front companies, and from using such structures to generate funding 
to finance their illicit activities. While many legal entities are used 
for legitimate purposes, they can also be misused, as highlighted in 
the NPRM, and as Congress recognized in the CTA.\106\ Moreover, 
existing regulatory and law enforcement tools, such as grand jury 
subpoenas, witness interviews, foreign legal assistance requests, and 
the 2016 CDD Rule, have limitations in enabling law enforcement and 
national security officials to identify the professional launderers and 
corrupt officials that hide behind anonymous shell companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ CTA, Section 6402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters expressed general opposition to the proposed 
regulations, arguing that the proposed regulations were too broad, too 
complex, and too difficult and costly to understand and comply with. 
Some commenters claimed that the proposed regulations deviated 
significantly from what Congress intended. Many of these commenters 
expressed concerns that the proposed regulations, if finalized without 
significant changes, would impose numerous and costly reporting 
requirements on small businesses and would create privacy and security 
concerns with respect to personally identifiable information. A number 
of these commenters suggested that FinCEN adopt a narrower approach, or 
circumscribe the scope of the reporting obligations. Some also argued 
that FinCEN should replicate or closely track definitions from the 2016 
CDD Rule.
    Many commenters, regardless of their overarching views, suggested a 
range of modifications to the proposed regulations to enhance clarity, 
refine policy expectations, and ensure technical accuracy.
    FinCEN carefully reviewed and considered each comment submitted. 
Many specific proposals will be discussed in more detail in Section III 
below. FinCEN's analysis has been guided by the statutory text, 
including the statutory obligations to collect information in a manner 
that ensures that it will be highly useful for national security, 
intelligence, and law enforcement activities and other authorized 
purposes, and minimize burdens on reporting entities, including small 
businesses.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In implementing this final rule, FinCEN took into account the many 
comments and suggestions intended to clarify and refine the scope of 
the rule and to reduce burdens on reporting entities, including small 
businesses, to the greatest extent practicable. FinCEN further notes 
that implementation of the final rule will require additional 
engagement with stakeholders to ensure a clear understanding of the 
rule's requirements and timeframes, including through additional 
guidance and FAQs, help lines, and other engagement--both directly with 
affected entities and through state governments and other third 
parties. FinCEN also intends to work within Treasury and with 
interagency partners to inform risk assessments, advisories, guidance 
documents, and other products that relate to the illicit finance risks 
associated with legal entities.

III. Discussion of Final Rule

    FinCEN is adopting the proposed rule largely as proposed, but with 
certain modifications that are responsive to comments received and 
intended to minimize unnecessary burdens on reporting companies, 
including by clarifying reporting obligations. The final rule extends 
to 30 days the deadline for newly created entities to file initial 
reports, and it sets the same 30-day deadline for entities filing 
updated and corrected reports. The final rule also removes the 
requirement that entities created before the effective date of the 
regulations report company applicant information. Newly created 
entities will still be required to report company applicant 
information, but they will not be required to update it. FinCEN 
believes that these changes will relieve burdens on reporting companies 
unique to company applicant information, while still ensuring that the 
database is highly useful. In addition, FinCEN has made a number of 
modifications to the ownership interest and substantial control 
definitions to enhance clarity and to facilitate compliance by 
reporting companies. FinCEN has made certain other clarifying and 
technical revisions throughout the rule. We discuss specific comments, 
modifications, revisions, and the shape of the final rule section by 
section here.

A. Timing of Reports

    The CTA authorizes FinCEN to establish the filing deadlines for 
both reporting companies in existence prior to the effective date of 
the regulations and reporting companies created or registered on or 
after the effective date. It also requires reporting companies to 
update and correct information submitted to FinCEN, and authorizes 
FinCEN to specify the timing of such submissions.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a) set forth those timeframes. It required 
initial reports to be filed by existing entities within one year of the 
effective date and by newly created or registered entities within 14 
days of their creation or registration. It also required corrected 
reports to be filed within 14 days after a reporting company becomes 
aware or

[[Page 59510]]

has reason to know that reported information is inaccurate, and it 
required updated reports to be filed within 30 days of a change in 
information requiring an update. Commenters supported the timeframes, 
or opposed them, based on a range of considerations, including the need 
to establish a highly useful database for law enforcement, the burdens 
on reporting companies, legal concerns about FinCEN's authority to 
prescribe timeframes shorter than the statutorily specified maximum 
periods, and practical considerations regarding the availability of 
certain types of information. Commenters also suggested possible 
alternatives, including aligning beneficial ownership reporting 
deadlines with other pre-existing filing obligations, such as annual 
federal tax reporting obligations or in connection with state corporate 
filing requirements and renewals. Some commenters also asked that the 
final rule include a mechanism for reporting companies to request 
extensions.
    The final rule adopts in many respects the proposed rule's 
framework but makes certain changes with respect to timeframes and 
timing events to address practical considerations identified by 
commenters. Importantly, the final rule harmonizes the reporting 
timeframes at 30 days for initial reports by newly created or 
registered entities, updated reports, and corrected reports. A number 
of commenters advocated for these harmonized and extended timeframes to 
ease administration for reporting companies and service providers that 
may support reporting companies.
i. Timing of Initial Reports
    Proposed Rule. For newly created or registered companies, proposed 
31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(i) specified that a domestic reporting company 
created on or after the effective date of the regulation shall file a 
report within 14 calendar days of the date it was created as specified 
by a secretary of state or similar office. Proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(a)(1)(ii) specified 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.
    For entities created or registered before the effective date of the 
regulations, the CTA requires filing of initial reports ``in a timely 
manner,'' but ``not later than'' two years after the effective date of 
the final regulations.\108\ Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(iii) 
required 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Commenters provided general comments in support 
or opposition to the reporting timeframes, and specific comments on 
initial reporting timeframes for existing and newly created entities, 
as well as updated and corrected reports.
    With respect to the initial reporting period for entities created 
after the effective date of the final rule (``newly-created 
entities''), some commenters supported the 14-day period for filing an 
initial report by newly-created domestic entities given that a large 
number of entities covered by the rule should have a limited number of 
owners and therefore have access to the required reporting information. 
Other commenters noted a range of concerns with the initial 14-day 
filing period for newly-created or -registered entities, whether 
domestic or foreign. For example, some commenters explained that there 
are varying state practices regarding registration and company 
formation, and that it can take several days to receive confirmation of 
the filing or registration from the secretary of state. Other 
commenters noted that a significant amount of time can elapse between 
company creation and the registration of alternative names through 
which the company is engaging in business (``d/b/a names''), and that 
there can be delays in receiving a TIN from the IRS, including for 
foreign employer identification numbers. Many of these commenters 
suggested alternative timeframes to accommodate these circumstances, 
ranging from 30 days to 6 months.
    With respect to entities in existence at the time of the effective 
date of the regulation, some commenters supported the one-year 
reporting period as a reasonable timeframe, while others opposed it. 
Commenters raised a range of concerns, and in particular, noted that 
the adequacy of the one-year reporting period depended on a range of 
considerations, including FinCEN's ability to develop an outreach 
strategy and publicize the new reporting requirements to stakeholders; 
the readiness of the BOSS to accept filings with data privacy and 
security safeguards; the availability of FinCEN hotline assistance, 
tools, guidance, and FAQs to aid reporting company compliance; and the 
ability of reporting companies to collect information from beneficial 
owners and company applicants. Some commenters maintained that the two-
year maximum period specified in the CTA should apply, and that this 
timeframe would be important for businesses with limited administrative 
capacity to implement. Commenters also suggested longer periods than 
the two-year period in the CTA, as well as shorter periods than the 
one-year period described in the proposed rule in order to ensure that 
reported information would be useful to financial institutions with CDD 
Rule obligations. Lastly, comments indicated that previously exempt 
entities should have 90 days or longer to submit an initial report 
after the qualifying conditions for the exemption lapse. One commenter, 
for example, asserted that existing entities that are exempt as of the 
effective date but that cease to be exempt during the first year after 
the effective date because they no longer meet the exemption criteria 
should receive the benefit of the one-year filing period for existing 
entities.
    Final Rule. With respect to newly created entities, the final rule 
revises proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(i) and (ii), for domestic and 
foreign reporting companies, respectively, to extend the reporting 
timeframes to 30 days and to provide greater specificity regarding the 
timing of the filing of initial reports. For existing entities, 
however, the final rule adopts the proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(i) 
without any changes. For existing entities, the final rule requires 
those reporting companies that exist at the time of the effective date 
to submit an initial report within one year of the effective date.
    For newly created entities, the final rule now specifies a trigger 
for the reporting period for an initial report. That trigger is the 
earlier of the date on which the reporting company receives actual 
notice that its creation (or registration) has become effective; or a 
secretary of state or similar office first provides public notice, such 
as through a publicly accessible registry, that the domestic reporting 
company has been created or the foreign reporting company has been 
registered. In this way, the final rule takes into consideration 
concerns raised by commenters that the date on which a filing is made 
with a secretary of state or similar office to create a reporting 
company is not as useful a reference point as other indicators for 
starting the time period in which to file an initial report. The final 
rule also takes into account varying state filing practices, including 
automated systems in certain states, as notification of creation or 
registration is provided to newly created

[[Page 59511]]

companies in some states, while in others no actual notice of creation 
or registration is provided and newly created companies receive public 
notice through state records. FinCEN believes that individuals that 
create or register reporting companies will have an incentive to stay 
apprised of creation or registration notices or publications given 
their interest in establishing an operating business or engaging in the 
activity for which the reporting company is created. FinCEN will 
consider additional guidance or FAQs, as appropriate, if there is a 
need to clarify how the final rule applies to specific factual 
circumstances that may arise from particular state creation or 
registration practices.
    The final rule also extends the filing period for initial reports 
from 14 days to 30 days in response to comments that describe potential 
impediments to the ability of reporting companies to meet the proposed 
timeframe. Comments expressed concerns about state confirmation of 
filings to create or form a reporting company, the timeframes necessary 
to register d/b/as at the county level, and timeframes required to 
receive a TIN from the IRS or from foreign authorities, and they raised 
questions about how to report persons with substantial control given 
that senior officer or other positions might not be filled promptly. An 
expanded 30-day timeframe will provide more time to reporting companies 
to acquire TINs and other identifying information, which is critical to 
the ability of FinCEN to distinguish reporting companies from one 
another, which in turn is necessary to create a highly useful database. 
FinCEN believes that this 30-day timeframe for initial reports will 
provide enough time for reporting companies to resolve various issues 
after initial creation, including obtaining necessary information and 
identifying their beneficial owners with sufficient time to file an 
initial report.
    For existing entities, the final rule requires those reporting 
companies that exist at the time of the effective date to submit an 
initial report within one year of the effective date. FinCEN disagrees 
with commenters who questioned its legal authority to set a one-year 
deadline. The CTA requires the reports to be filed ``in a timely 
manner, and not later than 2 years after the effective date,'' in 
accordance with regulations to be prescribed by FinCEN.\109\ 
Accordingly, the statute establishes a maximum time period of not later 
than two years, but it does not preclude FinCEN from adopting a 
deadline shorter than two years. FinCEN carefully considered the 
benefit to law enforcement and national security agencies that might be 
derived from periods shorter than 2 years, as well as the burdens 
imposed on reporting companies to identify beneficial ownership 
information. These burdens are further addressed in the Regulatory 
Analysis in Section V below. Given that the effective date of these 
regulations is January 1, 2024, and existing reporting companies will 
not be required to file information until January 1, 2025, FinCEN 
believes that there will be sufficient time for reporting companies to 
identify and report beneficial ownership information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as discussed in greater detail in Section III.B.iv.b. 
below, in order to reduce burdens on reporting companies in meeting the 
one-year deadline, the final rule at 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(2)(iv) no 
longer requires domestic reporting companies created prior to the 
effective date, or foreign reporting companies registered prior to the 
effective date, to submit company applicant information. Rather, these 
reporting companies will only need to report the fact that they were 
created or registered prior to the effective date and the information 
required for reporting companies and beneficial owners. This should 
help to minimize any burdens associated with a one-year deadline.
    In addition, some commenters said it was unclear how the initial 
reporting rules would apply to entities that are exempt as of the 
effective date but that cease to be exempt during the first year after 
the effective date because they no longer meet exemption criteria. 
FinCEN does not believe changes to the regulatory text are necessary to 
address this issue but notes that, in such circumstances, previously 
exempt entities will receive the benefit of the longer of the two 
applicable time frames, i.e., the remaining days left in the one-year 
filing period or the 30 calendar day period reflected in section 
1010.380(a)(1)(iv).\110\ FinCEN will consider guidance or FAQs to 
respond to any additional particular factual circumstances that may 
arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ For example, if there is an event that causes an exempt 
entity that was in existence on the effective date to no longer meet 
any exemption criteria on the 350th day after the effective date, 
that entity would have 30 days in which to file its initial report; 
in contrast, if the same entity were to no longer meet any exemption 
criteria on the 330th day after the effective date, it would have 35 
days to file its initial report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN also takes note of the many comments stating that FinCEN 
outreach to secretaries of state and stakeholders, FinCEN's readiness 
to accept filings through its beneficial ownership information 
database, and the availability of FinCEN assistance will all make a 
one-year timeframe easier to comply with. FinCEN is actively developing 
the database so that it will be ready to accept filings as of the 
effective date and intends to conduct outreach to communicate clearly 
the rules and expectations for reporting companies and other 
stakeholders.
    A number of commenters stated that the final rule should include a 
mechanism for reporting companies to request extensions, or provide an 
automatic extension period, to address a range of challenges such as 
the calculation of ownership interests after transfers of membership 
interests, locating beneficial owners or company applicants, 
particularly in foreign countries, or other circumstances. While the 
final rule does not establish a specific mechanism for reporting 
companies to seek extensions to the filing periods for initial, 
updated, or corrected reports, FinCEN may consider providing guidance 
or relief as appropriate, depending on the facts and circumstances.
ii. Timing of Updated and Corrected Reports
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2) required 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. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2)(i) specified that if 
a reporting company subsequently becomes eligible for an exemption from 
the reporting requirement after the filing of its initial report, this 
change will be deemed a change requiring an updated report.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2)(ii) provided 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 the 
deceased beneficial owner is settled. This proposed rule sought to 
clarify that a reporting company is not required to immediately 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

[[Page 59512]]

the intestacy laws of a jurisdiction within the United States or 
through a testamentary disposition, the reporting company is required 
to file an updated report at that time, removing the deceased former 
beneficial owner and, to the extent appropriate, identifying any new 
beneficial owners.
    With respect to the correction of inaccuracies in reports, proposed 
31 CFR 1010.380(a)(3) required 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. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(3) also specified that 
a corrected report filed under this paragraph within this 14-day period 
shall be deemed to satisfy the safe harbor provision at 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.
    Comments Received. With respect to updated reports, some commenters 
supported the 30-day timeframe to update reports as necessary to 
maintain an effective database, and other commenters asked for the 
application of a consistent timeframe across all the reporting 
requirements to streamline and facilitate compliance processes. Other 
comments suggested that the timeframe for updating reports be extended 
to 60 days, 90 days, or one year, and that the frequency or number of 
updated reports be limited or coincide with preexisting filing 
obligations of reporting companies (e.g., annual tax return filing, 
annual state filings). Some commenters also argued that there should be 
no requirement to file an updated report unless the reporting company 
becomes aware of a change in beneficial owners or beneficial ownership 
information. Lastly, some commenters argued that FinCEN does not have 
authority to shorten the timeframe to file updates to less than the 
one-year maximum specified in the CTA. These commenters pointed to a 
CTA requirement that the Secretary of the Treasury evaluate the 
necessity and benefit of a shorter deadline for updates than the one-
year maximum.
    With respect to deceased beneficial owners, commenters sought 
clarification of the application of the rule in specific circumstances. 
Commenters asked FinCEN to clarify the updated reporting timeframe if a 
reporting company is unable to acquire information about a successor 
within 30 days. In addition, commenters asked whether a report would be 
required if ownership interests of the deceased beneficial owner are 
diluted through distribution to a number of beneficiaries. Lastly, 
commenters suggested that the rule applicable to deceased beneficial 
owners should not apply to individuals who are beneficial owners based 
on substantial control.
    With respect to corrected reports, a number of commenters noted 
that the timeframe of 14 days to submit a corrected report after 
becoming aware of an inaccuracy was too short and advocated for longer 
time periods, including 21 days or 30 days after the inaccuracy is 
discovered. Other commenters suggested longer time periods, including 
up to 90 days, because businesses that discover inaccuracies would need 
to consult with their attorney or advisor to assess an appropriate way 
forward.
    There were also a few comments regarding the CTA's provision that 
provides a safe harbor to reporting companies that discover an 
inaccuracy and file a corrected report within 90 days of the filing of 
an initial report. Some commenters requested clarification that the 90 
day period be applied broadly to all reporting companies correcting any 
inaccurate reports. Other commenters argued that small businesses 
acting in good faith should have an opportunity to correct a violation 
and come into compliance, without fines or enforcement actions. Some 
commenters urged FinCEN to amend the proposed rule to clarify that the 
CTA's safe harbor applies to all reports that are corrected within 90 
days from the date on which a reporting company becomes aware or has 
reason to know that required information contained in any report it 
filed with FinCEN was inaccurate.
    A number of comments also requested clarification and asked whether 
specific proposed scenarios would trigger an initial or updated report 
filing requirement (e.g., company termination). Multiple commenters 
noted that the timeline for an updated report should be based on when a 
company becomes aware of the need to submit an update.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2) 
regarding the 30-day timeframe to submit updated reports, but makes 
certain clarifying edits and revises the proposed rule to exclude 
updates on company applicants. This exclusion is intended to reduce 
unnecessary burdens associated with the updating requirement, and is 
discussed in more detail in Section III.B.v. below in connection with 
31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3), which describes the contents of updated reports. 
For corrected reports, the final rule at 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(3) revises 
the timeframe for the submission of reports to correct inaccuracies to 
30 days, but otherwise adopts the language of the proposed rule with 
clarifying edits.
    Aligning the updated and corrected report deadlines with the 
initial reporting deadline for new entities will help to harmonize the 
reporting timelines, provide substantial time to obtain required 
information, and minimize potential confusion. A more standardized 
reporting timeline for these reports should make compliance easier for 
reporting companies.
    For updated reports, as stated in the proposed rule, FinCEN 
considers that keeping the database current and accurate is essential 
to keeping it highly useful, and that allowing reporting companies to 
wait to update beneficial ownership information for more than 30 days--
or allowing them to report updates on only an annual basis--could cause 
a significant degradation in accuracy and usefulness of the database. 
FinCEN has considered that a more frequent updating requirement may 
entail more burdens than a less frequent one, but reporting companies 
can be expected to know who their beneficial owners are, and it is 
reasonable to expect that reporting companies will update the 
information they report when it changes. Moreover, keeping the 
requirement to update reports at 30 days is consistent with 
international practice on the collection of beneficial ownership 
information.\111\ For example, in the United Kingdom, changes to 
beneficial ownership information for companies required to register 
with the UK registry must be reported within 15 days, and in France, 
companies and certain other types of associations and groups must file 
updates to beneficial ownership information within one month.\112\ 
Similarly, in the jurisdiction of Jersey, a major center for corporate 
formation, such updates must be filed

[[Page 59513]]

within 21 days.\113\ The Financial Action Task Force, the international 
standard-setting body for AML/CFT, has viewed longer timelines to 
update beneficial ownership information critically, and inconsistent 
with the FATF standard that beneficial ownership information of legal 
persons be up-to-date.\114\ As noted, FinCEN has eliminated the 
requirement that reporting companies update company applicant 
information, which should reduce compliance burdens. FinCEN has 
provided an alternative cost analysis for less frequent report updates 
in in the Regulatory Analysis in Section V, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See World Bank, Beneficial ownership: increasing 
transparency in a simple way for entrepreneurs (July 2, 2021), 
Figure 2, available at https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/beneficial-ownership-increasing-transparency-simple-way-entrepreneurs (noting that in most economies, the timeframe to 
disclose beneficial ownership information is from 21 to 30 days 
after a change in ownership).
    \112\ See Financial Action Task Force, United Kingdom Mutual 
Evaluation Report (December 2018) (p. 211), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/MER-United-Kingdom-2018.pdf; Financial Action Task Force, France Mutual 
Evaluation Report (May 2022) (p. 280), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/Mutual-Evaluation-France-2022.pdf.
    \113\ See Financial Action Task Force, Best practices on 
beneficial ownership for legal persons (October 2019) (p. 43), 
available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/Best-Practices-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.
    \114\ See Financial Action Task Force, Germany Mutual Evaluation 
Report (August 2022) (p. 285), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/Mutual-Evaluation-Report-Germany-2022.pdf (noting that ``[t]here is no detail on the 
timeframes in which basic and BO information should be updated which 
means that registry information may not always be up-to-date.''); 
See Financial Action Task Force, Hong Kong, China Mutual Evaluation 
Report (September 2019) (p. 210-211), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/MER-Hong-Kong-2019.pdf 
(noting that ``a company has two months to update changes in 
shareholding, especially for subsequent changes, in its register 
(s.627 CO), which means that shareholder information may not always 
be accurate and up-to-date even when the intention of the underlying 
parties are.''). See generally FATF Recommendations (updated March 
2022), Interpretive Note to Recommendation 24 (p. 94), available at 
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATF%20Recommendations%202012.pdf (``Up-to-date [beneficial 
ownership] information is information which is as current and up-to-
date as possible, and is updated within a reasonable period (e.g. 
within one month) following any change.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN disagrees with commenters who questioned its authority to 
impose a 30-day deadline based on the CTA's requirement that the 
Secretary of the Treasury evaluate the necessity and benefit of a 
deadline shorter than the one-year maximum. The CTA requires updates to 
be filed ``in a timely manner, and not later than 1 year'' after there 
is a change with respect to any reported information, in accordance 
with regulations to be prescribed by FinCEN.\115\ The statutory one-
year timeframe is plainly a maximum, and it does not preclude FinCEN 
from prescribing a deadline shorter than one year. Although the CTA 
requires ``a review to evaluate'' the necessity and benefit of a period 
shorter than one year, the deadline for this review notably does not 
run from the effective date of the final rule, and nothing in the CTA 
requires that the final rule be issued with a one-year deadline before 
the review occurs.\116\ In adopting a 30-day deadline, FinCEN has 
evaluated the necessity of a shorter updating period, the benefit to 
law enforcement and national security officials of such shorter period, 
and the burden on reporting companies.\117\ FinCEN has also consulted 
with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D).
    \116\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(E)(iii).
    \117\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(E)(ii), (iii).
    \118\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to deceased beneficial owners, 31 CFR 
1010.380(a)(2)(iii) adopts the proposed rule's requirement that an 
updated report must identify new beneficial owners within 30 days of 
the settlement of the estate of the deceased beneficial owner, either 
through the operation of the intestacy laws of a jurisdiction within 
the United States or through a testamentary disposition. The final 
rule, however, clarifies that an updated report must be filed if the 
deceased individual was a beneficial owner ``by virtue of property 
interests or other rights subject to transfer upon death,'' not solely 
because the deceased beneficial owner owned or controlled 25 percent of 
the reporting company's ownership interests. Finally, for the purposes 
of determining whether any of the successors to the deceased beneficial 
owner continue to be beneficial owners of the reporting company, no 
special rules apply, and the reporting company will need to apply the 
beneficial owner definition to assess whether any successor is a 
beneficial owner by virtue of the new property interests or rights.
    With respect to corrected reports, the final rule extends the 
filing deadline from 14 to 30 days in order to provide reporting 
companies with adequate time to obtain and report the correct 
information. The final rule reflects the concerns raised by commenters 
that the 14-day timeframe may not provide sufficient time for reporting 
companies to conduct adequate due diligence, consult with advisors, or 
conduct appropriate outreach, while at the same time providing a 
sufficiently short timeframe to ensure that errors are corrected 
quickly so that the database will remain ``accurate, complete, and 
highly useful.''
    In addition, for the sake of clarity, the final rule adds 31 CFR 
1010.380(a)(2)(iv), which provides that when a reporting company has 
previously reported information with respect to a parent or legal 
guardian of a minor child in lieu of the minor child's information, 
pursuant to 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(i), a reporting 
company must submit an updated report when a minor child attains the 
age of majority.
    FinCEN stresses that the requirement to update reports in 31 CFR 
1010.380(a)(2)(i) is triggered only where there is ``any change with 
respect to required information previously submitted to FinCEN 
concerning a reporting company or its beneficial owners.'' Consistent 
with this defined requirement, FinCEN has added 31 CFR 
1010.380(a)(2)(v) to the final rule to clarify that reporting companies 
are required to update the image of the identification document from 
which the unique identification number is obtained only when there is a 
change in information to be reported in 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii)(A-D) 
on the identification document. Other changes in the information 
contained in the identification document--for example, with respect to 
expiration dates or personal characteristics other than the information 
enumerated in 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii)(A-D)--do not require the 
submission of an updated image. Because the image is used to 
corroborate the information required to be reported in 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(1)(ii)(A-D), the image only needs to be updated when such 
information changes. FinCEN highlights this clarification to ensure 
that reporting companies avoid additional burdens of obtaining images 
of identification documents in circumstances that are not relevant for 
the purposes of the final rule.
    31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(3)(C) provides a safe harbor to any person that 
has reason to believe that any report submitted by the person contains 
inaccurate information and voluntarily and promptly, and consistent 
with FinCEN regulations, submits a report containing corrected 
information no later than 90 days after the date on which the person 
submitted the inaccurate report. The CTA is clear that the safe harbor 
is only available to reporting companies that file corrected reports no 
later than 90 days after submission of an inaccurate report, and does 
not extend to reports corrected more than 90 days after they are filed, 
even if a reporting company files a correction promptly after becoming 
aware or having reason to know that a correction is needed.
    In addition, the final rule does not adopt a good faith or other 
standard regarding the requirements to update or correct reports. The 
CTA places the reporting responsibility on reporting companies, and 
this responsibility includes the obligation to report accurately. The 
CTA also requires reporting companies to update information when it 
changes.

[[Page 59514]]

    Lastly, with respect to questions regarding the treatment of 
company termination or dissolution, FinCEN does not expect a reporting 
company to file an updated report upon company termination or 
dissolution. FinCEN will consider appropriate guidance or FAQs to 
address any other specific questions that may arise about application 
of the final rule to particular facts and circumstances.

B. Content, Form, and Manner of Reports

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b) specified 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. It then set forth 
specific types of identifying information that reporting companies are 
required to report about themselves, their beneficial owners, and their 
company applicants, and identified certain additional information that 
a reporting company may choose to submit. Next, it outlined certain 
special rules for the contents of reports and specified the contents of 
updated or corrected reports. Finally, it set forth requirements for 
obtaining and using a FinCEN identifier. The final rule in large part 
adopts the requirements of the proposed rule, but with certain changes 
explained in this section.
i. Certification
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b) specified that each 
person filing a report under that section must certify that the report 
is accurate and complete. This approach was based on comments to the 
ANPRM that discussed the potential for FinCEN to require an attestation 
of accuracy or other certification on either a one-time or periodic 
basis, including comments that argued that such a requirement would 
encourage reporting companies to keep their information up to date. 
FinCEN invited further comment on the proposal that a person filing a 
report pursuant to proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b) must certify that the 
report is accurate and complete.
    Comments Received. Commenters generally supported the certification 
requirement in proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b), stating that such a 
requirement is consistent with the purposes of the CTA and ensures that 
information in the BOSS is accurate and up to date, and thus highly 
useful to authorized users. Commenters who opposed the requirement 
stated that it exceeded the scope of FinCEN's authority. They noted 
that the CTA already established that it was unlawful for any person to 
willfully provide false information, and that the certification 
requirement could expand a person's liability for providing inaccurate 
information even if the information was provided in good faith. 
Commenters who opposed the proposed requirement also argued that the 
certification ignored the standards of practice in other areas such as 
federal income tax returns.
    Commenters generally questioned what level of due diligence was 
required of the person certifying the report, and observed that it 
would be burdensome, if not impossible, for a reporting company to 
certify the accuracy of the beneficial owner's or company applicant's 
personally identifiable information (PII). Commenters suggested 
changing the certification language to include various knowledge 
standards (i.e., ``to the best of their knowledge'' or ``to the best of 
their knowledge after reasonable and diligent inquiry''), and one 
commenter urged FinCEN to decrease the penalties for certifiers who act 
in good faith after diligent inquiry. Commenters also recommended that 
third parties submitting information on behalf of a beneficial owner or 
reporting company should have the option to make a declaration if 
unable to gather information, or if information provided to the third 
party was incorrect. Finally, one commenter urged FinCEN to clarify 
which person filing the report will have the certification obligation, 
and to define what certification of accuracy and completeness means.
    Final Rule. The final rule retains the certification requirement 
set out in the proposed rule, but clarifies the language to be 
consistent with other certification language that FinCEN uses 
elsewhere, which requires a certification that the reported information 
is ``true, correct, and complete.'' The amended certification 
requirement mirrors that in the Form 8300 (``Report of Cash Payments 
Over $10,000 in a Trade or Business'') \119\ required by FinCEN and 
IRS. The revisions will help to ensure a consistent information 
certification standard for information required to be reported to 
FinCEN. The final rule also clarifies that the certification 
requirement applies to any report or application submitted to FinCEN 
pursuant to 31 CFR 1010.380(b), such as an application for a FinCEN ID, 
not just to a BOI report submitted by a reporting company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Form 8300 (Rev. August 2014) (irs.gov). The IRS and FinCEN 
jointly administer the Form 8300 pursuant to companion statutory 
authorities, and regulations issued by both agencies. For the IRS' 
authority, see 26 U.S.C. 6050I and 26 CFR 1.6050I-1; for FinCEN's 
authority, see 31 U.S.C. 5331 and 31 CFR 1010.330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the final rule, each reporting company will certify that its 
report or application is true, correct, and complete. FinCEN recognizes 
that much of the information required to be reported about beneficial 
owners and applicants will be provided to reporting companies by those 
other individuals. However, the structure of the CTA reflects a 
deliberate choice to place the responsibility for reporting this 
information on the reporting company itself. The fundamental premise of 
the CTA is that the reporting company is responsible for identifying 
and reporting its beneficial owners and applicants.\120\ Inherent in 
that responsibility is the obligation to do so truthfully and 
accurately. Accordingly, FinCEN believes that it is reasonable to 
require reporting companies to certify the accuracy and completeness of 
their own reports, and it is appropriate to expect that reporting 
companies will take care to verify the information they receive from 
their beneficial owners and applicants before they report it to FinCEN. 
Requiring such a certification is within FinCEN's authority, which 
under the CTA extends to prescribing procedures and standards governing 
reports, and it is consistent with the CTA's direction that those 
procedures and standards ensure the beneficial ownership information 
reported to FinCEN be ``accurate'' and ``complete.'' \121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(A).
    \121\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While an individual may file a report on behalf of a reporting 
company, the reporting company is ultimately responsible for the 
filing. The same is true of the certification. The reporting company 
will be required to make the certification, and any individual who 
files the report as an agent of the reporting company will certify on 
the reporting company's behalf.
    The final rule does not adopt standards that apply to practitioners 
filing tax forms on a client's behalf, as these practices are 
dissimilar. Different roles, duties, and capacities can be subject to 
different requirements and different legal duties. For example, 
certified public accountants who practice before the IRS are subject 
not only to Treasury Department Circular No. 230 (Rev. 6-2014), 
``Regulations Governing Practice before the Internal Revenue 
Service'',\122\ (``Circular 230''),

[[Page 59515]]

but also to applicable state laws and board of accountancy rules or 
regulations, which may be more exacting or stringent in some respects 
than Circular 230. Furthermore, legal requirements for audit work are 
different from those for tax return preparation and other accounting 
services. Similarly, lawyers are subject to the Model Rules of 
Professional Conduct as adopted in their licensing jurisdiction, but 
those rules do not fully align with Circular 230. Accordingly, FinCEN 
considers the standard established by the certification requirement to 
be the appropriate standard for beneficial ownership filings under this 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Treasury Department Circular No. 230 (Rev. 6-2014), 
``Regulations Governing Practice before the Internal Revenue 
Service,'' Catalog Number 16586R, 31 CFR Subtitle A, Part 10, 
published (Jun. 12, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN considered applying a knowledge or due diligence standard to 
the certification as recommended by certain commenters. Given that the 
CTA places the responsibility on reporting companies to identify their 
beneficial owners, however, the final rule retains a version of the 
standard articulated in the proposed rule. Some commenters expressed 
concern about the certification in light of the civil and criminal 
penalties for willfully providing false or fraudulent beneficial 
ownership information.\123\ Any assessment as to whether false 
information was willfully filed would depend on all of the facts and 
circumstances surrounding the certification and reporting of the BOI, 
but as a general matter, FinCEN does not expect that an inadvertent 
mistake by a reporting company acting in good faith after diligent 
inquiry would constitute a willfully false or fraudulent violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Information To Be Reported Regarding Reporting Companies
    In order to ensure that each reporting company can be identified, 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(i) required each reporting company to 
provide: (1) the full name of the reporting company, (2) any trade name 
or ``doing business as'' name of the reporting company, (3) the 
business street address of the reporting company, (4) the state or 
Tribal jurisdiction of formation of the reporting company (or for a 
foreign reporting company, the state or Tribal jurisdiction where such 
company first registers), and (5) an IRS TIN of the reporting company 
(or, where a reporting company has not yet been issued a TIN, either a 
Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number or a 
Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)).
    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. Nevertheless, the CTA's express requirement to 
identify beneficial owners and applicants ``with respect to'' 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.'' Without a 
reporting company's identifying information, the users of the database 
could not determine what entities an individual owns or controls. For 
example, the database might show that a known drug trafficker is a 
beneficial owner, but it would not identify the specific entities that 
he owns and uses to launder money. Conversely, an investigator who 
knows an entity is being used to launder money would be unable to query 
the database to identify who owns and controls the entity. This would 
frustrate Congress's express purposes in enacting the CTA and would 
amount to an absurd result.\124\ The statutory authority to prescribe 
regulations for identifying the beneficial owners and applicants of 
reporting companies thus must necessarily include the authority to 
require identifying information about the reporting companies 
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 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.''); 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This argument was stated in the NPRM. While some commenters 
questioned the statutory basis for requiring such information, many 
expressly agreed with the proposed approach, recognizing that some 
basic identifying information about a reporting company would be 
necessary for the database to be useful. Nevertheless, FinCEN 
recognizes that this authority has limits. In this vein, some 
commenters noted that FinCEN should minimize the information reporting 
companies must disclose about themselves. Other commenters suggested 
that FinCEN require additional information, including details about 
company formation and reporting companies' corporate structure and 
chain of ownership. This type of information, however, is not needed to 
reliably identify a reporting company or associate a beneficial owner 
or company applicant with a reporting company.
a. Company Name
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(i)(A)-(B) required a 
reporting company to report the full name of the reporting company, as 
well as any trade or d/b/a names of the reporting company.
    Comments Received. Commenters generally supported the proposed 
requirement but asked for additional clarification regarding the scope 
of the requirement. A number of commenters requested that FinCEN 
require the submission of the full ``legal'' name to avoid confusion 
between similarly named entities or with operational names. Other 
commenters expressed concerns about the requirement that reporting 
companies also submit d/b/a or trade names and the potential burdens 
associated with reporting a large number of related names. To minimize 
this burden, commenters suggested that this reporting requirement be 
narrowed to d/b/a or trade names that a reporting company would file or 
register with a relevant government authority.
    Final Rule. FinCEN adopts the proposed rule, but clarifies the 
ambiguity in the proposed rule regarding the meaning of ``full name'' 
and adopts the use of ``full legal name'' to ensure that reporting 
companies submit the legal name used to establish the entity. As noted 
in the NPRM, companies with similar names may be mistaken for each 
other due to misspellings or other errors and FinCEN must have enough 
specific information about a reporting company to enable accurate 
searching of the BOI database. FinCEN considered requiring reporting 
companies to report only trade or d/b/a names that are filed or 
registered with a relevant government authority. However, FinCEN 
believes such a limitation would be insufficient to identify reporting 
companies that do business under names that they do not register with 
government authorities. Requiring all trade or d/b/a names, regardless 
of whether they are registered, will ensure that law

[[Page 59516]]

enforcement and national security agencies are able to associate 
businesses with their legal entities and beneficial owners, while also 
helping to avoid confusion between different entities.
b. Company Address
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(i)(C) required a 
reporting company to report the business street address of the 
reporting company.
    Comments Received. In the proposed rule, FinCEN recognized comments 
to the ANPRM that raised concerns that a reporting company might 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, and sought comment on these 
concerns. A number of comments stated the importance of disclosing the 
street address or physical location of a reporting company, and offered 
suggestions to provide greater precision to the concept of business 
street address. One commenter suggested, for example, ``street address 
of the reporting company's principal place of business'' in lieu of 
``business street address'' because an entity might have multiple 
business street addresses. Some commenters also noted that FinCEN 
should not permit the use of P.O. boxes because it would increase 
ambiguity about the location of a reporting company and could allow it 
to hide its location and activities.
    Other commenters noted challenges, particularly during the COVID 
pandemic, to limiting reporting to a business street address. Some 
commenters noted that businesses often operate from a residential 
address or that many internet companies have no established physical 
presence. Along these lines, some commenters indicated that businesses 
often use P.O. boxes where there is no fixed business to report or 
where a business is newly formed. Additional comments provided 
variations and asked to permit disclosure of the company formation 
agent's address, a physical street address where records are located, 
or a care of address. In addition, one commenter asked that the 
reporting requirement align with the Customer Identification Program 
(CIP) reporting requirements. Lastly, a number of commenters noted the 
need for clarification regarding the disclosure of business street 
address for foreign reporting companies, including whether such 
companies needed to report a U.S. address, a foreign address, or both.
    Final Rule. FinCEN adopts the proposed rule with certain changes 
that clarify the business street address to be reported. In particular, 
the final rule clarifies that for a reporting company with a principal 
place of business in the United States, the reporting company should 
provide the street address of that principal place of business. FinCEN 
is adopting the suggestion made by many commenters to require the 
address of the ``principal place of business'' given the potential 
ambiguity of ``business street address'' in cases in which a business 
may have multiple locations. For a reporting company with a principal 
place of business outside of the United States, the final rule 
specifies that the reporting company should provide the street address 
of the primary location in the United States where the reporting 
company conducts business. This requirement to provide a U.S. address 
will help to ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies 
are able to associate a reporting company that operates principally 
outside of the United States with the location where it operates in the 
United States. FinCEN considered comments suggesting that in such 
instances, FinCEN should either require or allow for voluntary 
reporting of a foreign address, in addition to a U.S. address, but 
determined that limiting the address requirement to a street address in 
the United States would be sufficient for identifying reporting 
companies and would minimize burdens associated with this reporting 
requirement. FinCEN believes that having a U.S. address for a reporting 
company would also enable law enforcement to reach a point of contact 
more effectively in case of an inquiry or investigation.
    As noted in the proposed rule, the requirement to report the street 
address of a business is not satisfied by reporting a P.O. box or the 
address of a company formation agent or other third party. FinCEN 
believes that reporting such third-party addresses would create 
opportunities for illicit actors to create ambiguities or confusion 
regarding the location and activities of a reporting company and 
thereby undermine the objectives of the beneficial ownership reporting 
regime.
    The comments, however, indicate that there are likely to be a 
variety of situations in which there may be questions about the 
principal place of business of a reporting company, and FinCEN will 
consider future guidance or FAQs to address such questions.
c. Jurisdiction of Formation and Registration
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(i)(D) required the 
reporting company to report its state or Tribal jurisdiction of 
formation, or for a foreign reporting company, the state or Tribal 
jurisdiction where such company first registers.
    Comments Received. A number of commenters noted that this 
information would provide clarity about the entity and create 
opportunities for federal, state, and local law enforcement 
collaboration. With respect to foreign reporting companies, a few 
commenters suggested that FinCEN also require the jurisdiction of 
formation, noting that this information would be valuable for cross-
border investigations and would help facilitate mutual legal assistance 
requests.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts and expands the proposed rule in 
order to ensure that the information in the beneficial ownership 
database can be used to reliably identify a reporting company. The 
final rule requires foreign reporting companies, in addition to 
domestic reporting companies, to report their jurisdiction of 
formation. This jurisdiction may be a State, Tribal, or foreign 
jurisdiction of formation. For foreign reporting companies, the final 
rule retains the requirement that the company report the State or 
Tribal jurisdiction where it first registers. In the case of foreign 
reporting companies, the jurisdiction of formation and the place of 
registration in the United States are necessary to ensure that 
reporting companies can be accurately identified, as different 
companies with similar names may be formed or registered in different 
jurisdictions. FinCEN also believes the jurisdiction of formation for 
foreign reporting companies will be highly useful for law enforcement 
and national security agencies in conducting cross-border 
investigations, and that there will be no additional burden associated 
with this reporting requirement since companies typically know their 
jurisdiction of formation.
d. Company Identification Numbers
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(i)(E) required the 
reporting company to submit a TIN (including an Employer Identification 
Number (EIN)), or where a reporting company has not yet been issued a 
TIN, a DUNS number or an LEI. The proposed rule recognized that a TIN 
is furnished on all tax returns, statements, and other tax-related 
documents filed with the IRS and stated an expectation that the 
requirement would entail limited burdens. At the same time, FinCEN 
recognized 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, 
and so

[[Page 59517]]

provided for the use of a DUNS or LEI number as an alternative. FinCEN 
also asked if there was additional information FinCEN should collect to 
identify a reporting company.
    Comments Received. Commenters expressed a range of views about the 
requirement to report a TIN, or in the alternative, a DUNS or LEI 
identifier. A number of commenters supported the requirement to report 
a TIN, and suggested that a reporting company be required to report a 
TIN later, if it initially reports a DUNS or LEI but subsequently 
receives a TIN. One commenter asked that the final rule be made 
consistent with the CIP Rule, and therefore the 2016 CDD Rule, and 
proposed as an alternative allowing reporting companies to provide 
evidence of an application by a reporting company for a TIN, permitting 
the disclosure of a DUNS or LEI on a voluntary basis. A couple of 
commenters suggested either requiring a state identification number 
(i.e., a unique identification number provided by the State of 
formation or registration) or accepting this number in lieu of a TIN, 
DUNS, or LEI; one of these commenters noted that a state identification 
number would be more easily accessible than a DUNS or LEI. Other 
commenters opposed this requirement entirely, stating that FinCEN 
either lacks the authority to require such identification information 
or that submission of this information would be too burdensome. One 
commenter expressed support for collecting this information on a 
voluntary basis only.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the requirement in the proposed 
rule to provide a TIN, but it simplifies the alternatives. Reporting 
companies will not be allowed to report a DUNS or LEI in lieu of a TIN; 
foreign reporting companies without a TIN will be required to provide a 
foreign tax identification number.
    While there may be some situations in which a company that is 
created or registered to do business in the United States will not have 
a TIN, the vast majority of reporting companies will have a TIN or will 
easily be able to obtain one. Although there may be a short lapse in 
time between the time of formation and the time it takes for a 
reporting company to apply for and receive a TIN, online applications 
for a TIN are returned almost immediately. Because FinCEN is extending 
the time for filing of an initial report under 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1) to 
30 days, FinCEN expects that reporting companies will have sufficient 
time to obtain a TIN before filing. FinCEN believes that a single 
identification number for reporting companies is necessary to ensure 
that the beneficial ownership registry is administrable and useful for 
law enforcement, to limit opportunities for evasion or avoidance, and 
to ensure that users of the database are able to reliably distinguish 
between reporting companies.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See note 124, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While domestic companies can easily obtain a TIN, there may be 
situations in which a foreign company that registers in the United 
States is not subject to U.S. corporate income tax and has no reason to 
obtain a TIN. In such cases, FinCEN has modified 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(1)(i)(F) to permit a reporting company to provide a foreign 
tax identification number and the name of the relevant jurisdiction as 
an alternative. Companies operating in most foreign countries are 
issued a tax identification number by the authorities of that country 
for tax purposes. In the event that unusual situations arise in which a 
foreign reporting company is not able to obtain a foreign tax 
identification number, FinCEN will consider appropriate guidance or 
relief depending on the circumstances.
    Finally, with respect to comments suggesting that FinCEN require 
reporting companies to provide a registration or similar number 
associated with the corporate formation application, FinCEN considered 
a range of options and factors on whether to include such a number, but 
determined that there were practical challenges. For example, it is 
unclear whether states issue comparable registration numbers with 
similar formats and therefore whether FinCEN could reliably use such a 
registration number due to the differences in state practices. In 
addition, mindful of the burdens for small companies, FinCEN was not 
convinced that those registration numbers are readily accessible to 
most companies in a manner similar to TINs.
iii. Information To Be Reported Regarding Beneficial Owners and Company 
Applicants
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii) specified the particular 
information required to be reported regarding beneficial owners and 
company applicants. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii) required 
reporting companies to identify each beneficial owner of the reporting 
company and each company applicant by: full legal name, date of birth, 
current residential or business street address, and unique identifying 
number from an acceptable identification document, and to provide an 
image of the identifying document.
    Some commenters suggested that FinCEN require a wide variety of 
additional information to be reported about beneficial owners and 
applicants, such as details of an individual's ownership or control 
relationship with the company (e.g., percentage of ownership interests, 
whether the relationship is through direct or indirect means) and total 
number of persons holding shares or interests in a company. Other 
commenters suggested that FinCEN require less information to be 
reported. Some proposed that FinCEN obtain certain information from 
other federal agencies such as the IRS, Citizen and Immigration 
Services (USCIS), or Social Security Administration (SSA), or from 
state and local government agencies, instead of from reporting 
companies. Some questioned FinCEN's authority to collect certain 
information not expressly specified in the statute. In addition, 
commenters suggested a range of modifications to the proposed rules to 
reduce burdens or address practical complications for reporting 
companies.
    In general, the CTA limits the types of information FinCEN can 
require reporting companies to report, and the commenters suggesting 
that FinCEN collect many additional types of information did not 
identify the authority by which FinCEN could do so. As explained in the 
NPRM, however, FinCEN has authority to collect certain limited types of 
information that are not expressly specified in the statute, and FinCEN 
disagrees with the commenters who questioned that authority. Moreover, 
while FinCEN has considered the suggestion to seek information from 
other government agencies, the CTA requires reporting companies to 
submit reports to FinCEN and there are specific legal and regulatory 
frameworks that limit FinCEN's ability to obtain information from other 
agencies.\126\ The discussion that follows addresses considerations 
relating to the specific types of information to be reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ For example, 26 U.S.C. 6103 restricts the disclosure of 
federal tax information by the IRS to other federal agencies for 
other than tax purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Name, DOB, and Address
    Proposed Rule. For every individual who is a beneficial owner or 
company applicant, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii) required the 
reporting company to report each individual's full legal name, date of 
birth, and complete current address. In the case of a company applicant 
who files a document to create or register a

[[Page 59518]]

reporting company in the course of such individual's business, the 
proposed rule required the address to be the business street address of 
such business. In any other case, the proposed rule required the 
address to be the residential address that the individual uses for tax 
residency purposes.
    Comments Received. With respect to the residential address, many 
commenters supported clarifying that the residential address should be 
the address an individual uses for tax purposes. Other commenters 
stated that such clarification was unnecessary, pointing out that 
FinCEN did not include it in the 2016 CDD Rule when requiring a 
residential address. Some commenters claimed that FinCEN does not have 
the authority to specify a particular type of residential address. Some 
commenters asserted that the concept of a residential address ``for tax 
residency purposes'' is not widely understood and may lead to 
confusion, including for foreign nationals.
    Several commenters asserted that FinCEN lacks statutory authority 
to prescribe the particular types of addresses that may be used by 
beneficial owners and company applicants, claiming that the statute 
provides reporting companies with the choice of identifying beneficial 
owners and company applicants by their residential or business street 
address. However, many commenters supported the requirement to report 
business addresses for company applicants who file documents in the 
course of their business. With respect to the requirement that a 
residential address be used for all other individuals, other commenters 
supported FinCEN's proposed bifurcated approach of requiring a 
residential street address used for tax residency purposes, noting that 
the rule provides clarity given that an individual may have multiple 
addresses but typically only one residential address for tax residency 
purposes.
    Some commenters suggested that the rule should be more specific in 
a variety of ways. Some asserted that it should require the street 
address of the U.S. headquarters or principal place of business of 
company applicants who file documents in the course of their business. 
Other commenters laid out specific scenarios and asked for 
clarification on whether FinCEN would require reporting of a 
residential or business address for a company applicant. Commenters 
asked FinCEN to specify whether private mailboxes, GPS coordinates, and 
office addresses could be used, and asked whether FinCEN would provide 
workarounds for individuals who frequently move and/or do not have tax 
residency in any jurisdiction (so-called ``tax nomads''). Some 
commenters noted safety concerns for victims of domestic violence and 
other victims whose addresses would be required to be reported, and 
requested clarity regarding address confidentiality programs and the 
reporting of alternative addresses.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(1)(ii) with two changes to the address-related 
requirements. First, the final rule omits the requirement that the 
reported residential street address be the address an individual uses 
for tax residency purposes. FinCEN agrees with the commenters who 
pointed out that ``tax residency purposes'' is not sufficiently clear, 
particularly in light of the fact that tax residency can be established 
by time in a jurisdiction without any fixed residential address. 
Second, the final rule revises the provision to provide additional 
clarity: a business address is required for a company applicant ``who 
forms or registers an entity in the course of such company applicant's 
business.''
    The final rule adopts the bifurcated approach in the proposed rule 
that required a business address for company applicants who create or 
register companies in the course of their business, while requiring a 
residential address for all other individuals, including beneficial 
owners. As explained in the NPRM, the statute does not prescribe when 
or whether one type of address is to be used in preference to another. 
The statute instead provides that ``[i]n accordance with regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary,'' a report shall identify each beneficial 
owner and applicant by ``residential or business street address.'' 
\127\ The statute thus requires either a residential or a business 
street address, but it leaves to FinCEN's discretion the authority to 
prescribe the appropriate rules for addresses within those limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In prescribing the rules governing addresses, FinCEN considered 
leaving to the reporting company the choice of which address to report, 
but FinCEN believes that this would unduly diminish the usefulness of 
the reported information for national security, intelligence, and law 
enforcement activity. Under most circumstances, a residential street 
address is of greater value both for establishing the identity of an 
individual and as a point of contact in an inquiry or investigation. By 
contrast, a business address could be used by some individuals to 
obscure their identity or location, and multiple persons may be 
associated with a business address. Business addresses may be of some 
investigative value as points of contact in the event that an 
investigation requires follow-up, but such addresses are less reliable 
guides to a beneficial owner's identity and location than a residential 
address. Most identifying documents for individuals, such as driver's 
licenses and passports, use residential addresses rather than business 
addresses.
    A business address, however, may be more useful in instances where 
a company applicant provides a business service as a corporate 
formation agent. In such cases, the company applicant's business is 
directly relevant because it is the reason why the individual is a 
company applicant. Collecting the business addresses of such company 
applicants may also allow law enforcement to identify patterns of 
entity creation or registration by linking the business addresses of 
company applicants for different entities.
    Some commenters raised questions about whether the reported address 
must be in the United States, and about alternative types of addresses. 
Under the final rule, the address must be the individual's current 
street address, but the final rule does not require that it be an 
address in the United States. Accordingly, in cases in which a 
beneficial owner or company applicant does not have a street address in 
the United States, the reporting company may report a street address in 
a foreign jurisdiction. Alternatives such as post office boxes, private 
mailboxes, and addresses of business agents or corporate agents are not 
residential street addresses, and such alternatives do not provide an 
adequate substitute for the residential street address to establish the 
identity of a beneficial owner.
    In general, FinCEN recognizes the sensitivity inherent in 
collecting any personal identifying information and takes seriously the 
need to maintain the highest standards for information security 
protections for information reported to FinCEN to prevent the loss of 
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information that may 
have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect.\128\ In addition, 
commenters noted circumstances in which reporting residential street 
addresses may present unique challenges. In particular, FinCEN 
recognizes the importance of address confidentiality programs in 
ensuring the safety of victims of domestic violence and other crimes 
and will consider appropriate guidance or

[[Page 59519]]

relief to address those situations. As more information may be required 
regarding the specifics of these programs and the technical 
specifications of FinCEN's BOSS, FinCEN will address these matters at a 
later date.\129\ If other unique circumstances arise that present 
challenges in reporting residential street addresses, FinCEN will 
consider those circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(8).
    \129\ FinCEN also intends to issue guidance or relief regarding 
address confidentiality programs in the context of a request by an 
individual for a FinCEN identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Unique Identifying Number and Image From Identification Document
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii) specified that, 
for each individual who is a beneficial owner or company applicant, a 
unique identifying number must be reported from one of four types of 
acceptable identification documents: a nonexpired U.S. passport; a 
nonexpired state, local, or Tribal identification document; a 
nonexpired State-issued driver's license; or, if an individual lacks 
one of those other documents, a nonexpired foreign passport.\130\ 
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii) also required the reporting company 
to provide an image of the identification document from which the 
unique identifying number was obtained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A)(iv)(I) (unique identifying 
number requirement); 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(1) (definition of 
``acceptable identification document'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. With respect to the types of acceptable 
identification documents, commenters pointed out a number of situations 
in which a beneficial owner or company applicant may not have an 
acceptable identification document. For example, commenters noted that 
a person may not possess one of the permissible types of identification 
documents because of the difficulty in appearing in person at a State 
department of motor vehicles when required to secure or renew an ID due 
to, e.g., incapacitation or other medical conditions. The comments 
included suggestions for alternatives in cases where an acceptable 
identification document is unavailable, such as social security 
numbers, other images, or a check-box indicating that an identification 
document is unavailable. Other commenters indicated that the 
requirement to submit a foreign passport number may have the unintended 
consequence of harming foreign small business owners who do not need to 
acquire a foreign passport for international travel. With respect to 
foreign passports, commenters also suggested that FinCEN clarify that a 
foreign passport number be used only as a last resort, i.e., where the 
other enumerated forms of identification documents are unavailable.
    With respect to the collection of images, some commenters concurred 
with the proposal to collect images because, among other things, that 
information would be valuable for law enforcement, allow easier 
verification of submitted information, and represent a modest increase 
in burden for most reporting companies. By contrast, a number of 
commenters questioned whether the CTA authorizes FinCEN to collect 
images, expressed concerns regarding privacy considerations, and noted 
that it would be burdensome for reporting companies to collect and 
store images of these sensitive documents. Some commenters also viewed 
this requirement as duplicative and unnecessary because law enforcement 
already has the ability to retrieve a driver's license or other 
identifying document using the unique identification number. Other 
commenters suggested an iterative approach, arguing that the collection 
of images should be considered at a later time after FinCEN gains 
experience with the implementation of the beneficial ownership 
database.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(1)(ii) regarding the types of ``acceptable identification 
document'' that reporting companies may submit with respect to 
beneficial owners and company applicants, with minor clarifying edits. 
Specifically, FinCEN has clarified that reporting companies must 
specify what jurisdiction issued the identification document from which 
a beneficial owner's unique identifying number came. This information 
is necessary to ensure that the identifying number can be identified as 
unique and valid, and to avoid situations where two different 
individuals may have the same identifying number in documents issued by 
different jurisdictions.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See note 124, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN considered comments regarding the potential for alternatives 
where an acceptable identification document is unavailable. However, 
the CTA is clear in identifying the four specific types of 
identification documents that are ``acceptable.'' While FinCEN 
recognizes that circumstances may arise where obtaining such documents 
may present burdens, the CTA does not contemplate alternatives to the 
four common and reliable forms of identification documents that are 
expressly enumerated in 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(1). In addition, the statute 
is clear that a foreign passport may be used only if the other 
enumerated forms of identification documents are not available, and 
FinCEN is not making any changes in response to comments on this issue.
    After careful consideration, FinCEN continues to believe that 
collecting images from a reporting company in connection with a 
specific beneficial owner or company applicant will contribute 
significantly to maintaining a BOI database that is highly useful in 
facilitating national security, intelligence, and law enforcement 
activities as required by the CTA. FinCEN appreciates that the 
requirement to provide images of identifying documents may impose some 
additional burden, and it has included a qualitative discussion of such 
costs in the regulatory impact analysis. However, FinCEN views the 
benefits associated with this requirement as outweighing the burdens.
    As an initial matter, requiring the submission of an image will 
help confirm the accuracy of the reported unique identification number. 
In addition, as some commenters noted, the submission of a falsified 
image would require much more effort than submitting an incorrect 
identification number. Thus, the requirement to submit an image of an 
identification document will also make it harder to provide false 
identification information.
    In addition, images of identification documents will assist law 
enforcement in accurately identifying individuals in the course of an 
investigation because those scans will contain a picture of the person 
associated with the identifying number. While law enforcement may be 
able to secure copies of driver's licenses or passport pages through 
alternative means, such as subpoenas, summonses, or access agreements 
with state departments of motor vehicles or other entities, the need 
for such efforts can result in delays in the investigative process. 
This is particularly the case for foreign identification documents that 
would likely be difficult to obtain and could be subject to procedures 
under mutual legal assistance treaties that are limited to criminal 
matters. For similar reasons, FinCEN expects that the images will 
assist financial institutions subject to customer due diligence 
requirements under the 2016 CDD Rule in the performance of those 
requirements.
    FinCEN also notes that disclosures of this type already occur 
regularly in a variety of circumstances. The federal and state agencies 
that issue identification documents of course

[[Page 59520]]

retain the information those documents contain. Moreover, companies 
routinely review (and many retain images of) identification information 
in the course of verifying eligibility for employment in the United 
States to complete U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services form I-9. 
Financial institutions subject to CIP obligations frequently require 
individuals to present identification documents when opening new 
accounts, and they routinely retain copies of those documents. Perhaps 
most telling, legal entities opening accounts at covered financial 
institutions in the United States should also already be accustomed to 
providing identification information and images of identifying 
documents to those financial institutions, which need the information 
in order to comply with the beneficial ownership requirements of the 
2016 CDD Rule.\132\ And beneficial owners of such legal entities should 
already be accustomed to providing that information to the entities 
they own--often in the form of actual identification documents or 
images of the same--in order to make possible the disclosures that are 
necessary for CDD purposes. Given the frequency and variety of the 
circumstances in which this information, including images, is 
disclosed, FinCEN does not think that its disclosure in this context is 
unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 31 CFR 1010.230(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, FinCEN appreciates the privacy concerns 
associated with disclosure and retention of identity information. 
FinCEN takes seriously its responsibility to protect such information 
and will ensure--including through a future rulemaking governing access 
to BOI--that BOI will be used only for statutorily authorized purposes 
and will be subject to stringent use and security protocols. Indeed, 
there are significant statutory restrictions on the sharing of BOI, and 
FinCEN is required to promulgate appropriate protocols for protecting 
the security and confidentiality of that information.\133\ Those 
protocols must, for example, require requesting agencies to establish 
and maintain secure systems for storing BOI, provide a report on the 
procedures that will be used to ensure the confidentiality of the 
information, impose limits on who may access the information and 
training requirements for those authorized people, maintain a permanent 
system of standardized records and an auditable trail of each request, 
conduct an annual audit, and follow other necessary or appropriate 
safeguards.\134\ Unauthorized use or disclosure of BOI may be subject 
to criminal and civil penalties.\135\ Access within the Department will 
also be subject to procedures and safeguards.\136\ Protecting the 
security and confidentiality of this information is a critical priority 
for FinCEN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c).
    \134\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(3)(A)-(K).
    \135\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(2).
    \136\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(5), (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN is not persuaded by comments suggesting an iterative 
approach to the collection of images that would evaluate the need for 
the collection of images after operationalizing the beneficial 
ownership database. It could be more expensive for reporting companies 
to conduct additional due diligence and collect scanned images for 
beneficial owners or company applicants at a later time after already 
investing up front to collect and submit such persons' identifying 
information as part of an initial report. Moreover, particularly given 
the benefits in deterring fraud and enabling verification, the 
collection of such information from the outset would help ensure that 
the BOI database is highly useful for law enforcement and national 
security agencies at its inception.
    Finally, FinCEN disagrees with the commenters who questioned 
FinCEN's statutory authority to collect images of identification 
documents. Although images are not expressly specified as information 
required to be reported in 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A), another provision 
of the statute, 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(1)(A), makes it unlawful to provide 
``false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, including a 
false or fraudulent identifying photograph or document, to FinCEN in 
accordance with subsection (b)'' (emphasis added). This provision 
clearly contemplates that identifying photographs or documents are 
among the beneficial ownership information FinCEN may require under 31 
U.S.C. 5336(b). If FinCEN lacked authority to collect images of 
identifying documents, the express reference to such documents in the 
penalty provision would be superfluous. Moreover, the CTA authorizes 
FinCEN to prescribe procedures and standards for the reports required 
under subsection (b), and it specifies that the reports include a 
unique identifying number from an acceptable identification document. 
In prescribing those procedures and standards, the CTA directs FinCEN 
to ensure the reported BOI is ``accurate, complete, and highly 
useful.'' \137\ Images of identifying documents will further that 
objective. Accordingly, in prescribing how reporting companies are to 
identify individuals by a unique identifying number from an acceptable 
identification document, FinCEN may require that an image of the 
document be provided along with the number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in detail in Section II.ii related to updated or 
corrected reports, reporting companies will need to provide updates to 
information reported under 31 CFR 1010.380(b)--including images of an 
identifying document--only where there is ``any change with respect to 
required information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning a 
reporting company or its beneficial owners.'' Changes in expiration 
dates or personally identifiable information other than the data 
specified in 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii)(A-D) do not require the 
submission of an updated image.
c. Voluntary TIN
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.38(b)(2) permitted a reporting 
company to report the 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 would provide. FinCEN proposed this 
voluntary reporting option because such information, if reported, would 
help ensure that the BOI database is highly useful for authorized 
users, in furtherance of the CTA's purpose and mandate. For example, it 
was anticipated that having access to a TIN would allow authorized 
users such as law enforcement, the IRS, and financial institutions to 
cross-reference other databases and more easily verify the information 
of an individual. FinCEN proposed to require consent from individuals 
whose TINs are reported because TINs in most cases are an individual's 
social security number, and such numbers are subject to special 
protections under the Privacy Act.
    Comments Received. Commenters both supported and opposed the 
submission of TINs on a voluntary basis. Those that supported the 
collection of TINs on a voluntary basis indicated it would provide 
useful information for authorized users of the BOI database--including 
law enforcement, investigators, and financial institutions--for 
accuracy-enhancing, identification, and verification purposes. Certain 
commenters stated that it was unnecessary to require a reporting 
company to obtain an individual's consent, while others said

[[Page 59521]]

that consent should be based on an opt-out framework rather than having 
a prior-consent requirement. Some of these commenters also suggested 
that the collection of TINs be made mandatory.
    Other commenters maintained that the CTA does not provide FinCEN 
with the authority to collect TINs, even on a voluntary basis. One 
commenter in particular argued that FinCEN may not collect such 
information on a voluntary basis absent a specific statutory 
authorization, and that, in any event, agencies collecting information 
provided on a voluntary basis need to satisfy other legal requirements, 
such as those imposed by the Privacy Act \138\ and the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.\139\ Other commenters stated that a voluntary reporting 
option would be ineffective because reporting companies would lack 
incentives to undertake the effort to collect TINs, obtain consent, and 
report the TINs to FinCEN, if there were no requirement to do so. In 
addition, commenters raised concerns about any collection of TINs given 
the risk of data leaks and data privacy considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 5 U.S.C. 552a.
    \139\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Rule. FinCEN has eliminated proposed 31 CFR 1010.38(b)(2) in 
the final rule. FinCEN assesses that the benefits to be gained from 
such voluntary collection (such as benefits to law enforcement, the 
IRS, and financial institutions) are likely to be limited given that 
the reporting is voluntary, and many reporting companies will likely 
decline to provide such information, particularly given the need to 
obtain affirmative consent from each individual prior to reporting 
their TIN. Moreover, FinCEN acknowledges the views of some commenters 
that TINs are subject to heightened privacy concerns because they are 
typically an individual's social security number, and that the 
collection of such information could entail greater cybersecurity and 
operational risks. Accordingly, FinCEN believes that at this time the 
benefits of implementing the voluntary reporting provision do not 
outweigh the additional burden, complication, and risks associated with 
the collection of TINs on a voluntary basis.
iv. Special Rules
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3) set forth special rules for the 
information required to be reported regarding ownership interests held 
by exempt entities, minor children, foreign pooled investment vehicles, 
and deceased company applicants. The following discusses these special 
rules, with the exception of the special rule applicable to minor 
children in 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(ii), which is discussed in connection 
with the exceptions to the definition of beneficial owner.
a. Reporting Company Owned by Exempt Entity
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(i) set forth a 
special rule for reporting companies with ownership interests held by 
exempt entities. The proposed rule provided that 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 filed by the reporting company shall include the 
name of the exempt entity rather than the information required with 
respect to such beneficial owner. This proposed rule was intended to 
implement the special rule for exempt entities set forth at 31 U.S.C. 
5336(b)(2)(B).
    Comments Received. Commenters noted a number of considerations in 
the application of the special reporting rule for exempt entities. Some 
commenters observed that the proposed rule treated ownership through an 
exempt entity differently from substantial control exercised through an 
exempt entity. These commenters suggested that FinCEN should extend the 
special rule to permit a reporting company to report an exempt entity 
in situations in which the exempt entity is a beneficial owner by 
virtue of its ``substantial control'' over the reporting company. Other 
commenters suggested that individuals appointed by an exempt entity to 
manage a reporting company, e.g., as a board member or a senior officer 
to guide or constrain the reporting company, should be considered an 
intermediary or agent of the reporting company rather than a beneficial 
owner of the reporting company. One commenter expressed concerns about 
the burdens that the special rule would impose on reporting companies 
to investigate and understand the ownership structure of upstream 
exempt entities in order to identify ultimate beneficial owners of the 
reporting company. To simplify reporting in such cases, the commenter 
suggested, among other things, a limiting principle to allow the 
reporting company to report an exempt entity nearest in the chain of 
ownership that itself owns 25% of the reporting company, regardless of 
individual ownership of that exempt entity.
    Final Rule. The final rule clarifies proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(3)(i) to address practical challenges identified in the 
operation of the proposed rule. First, the final rule clarifies that 
the special rule may apply where an individual holds ownership 
interests in a reporting company through ``one or more'' exempt 
entities. An individual may be a beneficial owner of a reporting 
company by indirectly holding 25 percent or more of the ownership 
interests of the reporting company through multiple exempt entities.
    Second, the final rule clarifies that it applies only when an 
individual is a beneficial owner of a reporting company ``exclusively'' 
by virtue of the individual's ownership interest in exempt entities. 
Without this clarification, the proposed rule could have been read to 
enable beneficial owners who hold ownership interests through both 
exempt and non-exempt entities to obscure their standing as beneficial 
owners of a reporting company. For example, it would not have been 
necessary to report an individual who holds a 24 percent interest in a 
reporting company through a non-exempt entity and a one percent 
interest in the same reporting company through an exempt entity (for a 
total, otherwise reportable, ownership interest of 25 percent) as a 
beneficial owner under the proposed rule. The proposed special rule 
therefore could have provided a means through which beneficial owners 
of a reporting company could have avoided being reported by electing to 
hold even a small portion of their ownership interests through an 
exempt entity and keeping their ownership interests through non-exempt 
entities under 25 percent. The final rule language precludes this 
outcome. FinCEN believes that this special rule will contribute to 
maintaining an accurate database and minimize inaccuracies and 
confusion.
    FinCEN has considered the comments requesting expansion of the 
special rule to include beneficial owners who exercise substantial 
control through an exempt entity. However, FinCEN does not believe such 
an expansion is warranted. The statutory provision that this special 
rule implements is focused on an exempt entity ``hav[ing] a direct or 
indirect ownership interest in a reporting company.'' \140\ This focus 
reflects an effort to relieve reporting burdens associated with 
ownership of exempt entities. But substantial control raises different 
concerns in light of the variety of ways in which such control

[[Page 59522]]

may be exercised over a reporting company. FinCEN believes that it 
would limit the usefulness of the database and create opportunities for 
evasion if beneficial owners who have substantial control over 
reporting companies through exempt entities do not need to be reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the final rule makes the use of this special rule optional, 
rather than mandatory, using ``may'' instead of ``shall.'' A reporting 
company would therefore have the option to provide information about 
individuals who are beneficial owners of the reporting company by 
virtue of their interests in the exempt entity, rather than providing 
information about the exempt entity itself. This enables an exempt 
entity to avoid being identified, a concern expressed by a commenter, 
and instead provide information about a beneficial owner directly if 
the reporting company wishes to do so. Although the CTA specifies that 
the reporting company ``shall . . . only'' list the name of the exempt 
entity, that language is reasonably read to mean that the reporting 
company shall only be required to do so--i.e., that the requirement is 
optional.\141\ This interpretation harmonizes that language with other 
language providing that the reporting company ``shall not be required'' 
to report information about beneficial owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Company Applicant for Existing Companies
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(iv) contained a 
special rule for situations where a reporting company is created before 
the effective date of the regulations and the company applicant died 
before the reporting obligation became effective. The NPRM explained 
that the requirement to report identifying information about company 
applicants may present challenges for a longstanding company (e.g., one 
that was formed decades ago). To minimize burdens when the applicant 
has died and information about the applicant may not be readily 
available, the NPRM therefore proposed to allow a reporting company 
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.
    The NPRM sought comment on whether there are any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rules that would minimize their impact on 
small entities while accomplishing the objectives of the CTA. The NPRM 
also sought comment on whether the one-year timeline for a preexisting 
reporting company to file its initial report imposes undue burdens on 
reporting companies, in light of the need to conduct due diligence to 
determine beneficial owners and company applicants and collect relevant 
information.
    Comments Received. Numerous comments highlighted the difficulties 
in obtaining company applicant information for reporting companies 
formed before the effective date of the regulations, even if the 
company applicant is not known to be deceased. Commenters explained 
that the rationale for relieving companies of the burden to report 
information about deceased applicants extended to all company 
applicants of reporting companies formed or registered before the 
effective date. Commenters from the small business community 
characterized the challenges of undertaking a lookback to ascertain 
company applicant information for preexisting companies as a 
``nightmare'' and a ``wild goose chase.'' Even if a preexisting 
reporting company were able to identify the particular individuals who 
previously formed or registered the company, these commenters noted 
that there would be significant challenges in tracking down those 
individuals and obtaining the reportable information from them. 
Commenters stated that collecting such information for existing 
entities would be burdensome if not impossible in many cases, because 
the reporting company may have no contact information for the company 
applicant and the company applicant may be incapacitated or impossible 
to contact for other reasons.
    Some commenters suggested that FinCEN should create differentiated 
rules for the reporting of company applicant information for entities 
existing prior to the effective date of these regulations and for 
company applicant information for reporting companies created after the 
effective date. Commenters most frequently suggested that the deceased 
company applicant special rule be expanded to apply to any reporting 
company created more than a specific time period before the effective 
date of the regulation, e.g., before January 1, 2000, or ten years 
before the effective date of this regulation. For example, one 
commenter suggested that if a reporting company was created or 
registered before the effective date of the final rule, the company 
applicant reporting requirement should be limited to information about 
the company applicant of which the reporting company has actual 
knowledge. Other commenters recommended expanding the special rule for 
deceased company applicants to other situations, such as where the 
company applicant's location and information is unknown or the company 
applicant is disabled, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to provide 
the required identification information.
    Final Rule. The final rule addresses these concerns by expanding 
the proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(iv) (renumbered in the final rule as 
31 CFR 1010.380(b)(2)(iv)) into a more general rule that reporting 
companies created or registered before the effective date of the 
regulation do not need to report information about their company 
applicants. FinCEN has considered the numerous comments that identified 
practical challenges in identifying company applicants and company 
applicant information for reporting companies that were in existence 
prior to the effective date of the regulation. In large part, these 
practical challenges are likely to arise because the reporting company 
often does not have a direct or ongoing relationship with a company 
applicant, particularly if that company applicant is associated with a 
corporate formation service provider. FinCEN agrees with commenters 
that there are substantial and unique burdens associated with 
identifying company applicants and obtaining company applicant 
information for companies that have been in existence for some time.
    At the same time, FinCEN has considered the law enforcement value 
of company applicant information for entities existing prior to the 
effective date of the regulation, and FinCEN believes such value is 
limited. The value of such information becomes increasingly attenuated 
over time, given that an individual company applicant may have limited 
recollection of the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the 
creation or formation of an existing reporting company, and no ongoing 
relationship with the company.
    FinCEN considered various alternatives, including a specific time 
period (e.g., ten years) for reporting past company applicants or an 
``actual knowledge'' standard. However, a specific time period would 
impose greater burdens on reporting companies by requiring them to 
obtain information about company applicants used in the past, and an 
``actual knowledge'' standard would be more complicated to administer 
and enforce. Moreover,

[[Page 59523]]

neither alternative would entail significantly greater benefits for law 
enforcement. Ultimately, FinCEN believes the effective date of the 
regulation provides an appropriate balance to ensure the availability 
of useful information to law enforcement for new or ongoing 
investigations while also providing a reasonable date for which 
reporting companies can reasonably identify company applicants and 
company applicant information, particularly because company applicants 
and reporting companies will be on notice of the requirements of the 
final rule by the effective date and will file their reports shortly 
after new companies are formed or registered.
    This approach is also consistent with the plain language of the 
CTA. Although the CTA requires reporting companies to ``identify each 
beneficial owner of the applicable reporting company and each applicant 
with respect to that reporting company,'' the statute defines 
``applicant'' in the present tense as any individual who ``files'' or 
``registers'' an application to form or register an entity.\142\ At the 
time of the effective date of the final rule, when this obligation is 
imposed, entities that were formed or registered prior to the effective 
date will have no individual who files or registers the application 
because such filing or registration will have occurred in the 
past.\143\ Such entities will thus have no company applicant to report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A), (a)(2).
    \143\ Such present-tense language in a statute generally does 
not include the past. See Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229, 
2236 (2010); 1 U.S.C. 1 (``[U]nless the context indicates otherwise 
. . . words used in the present tense include the future as well as 
the present.''). In any event, FinCEN also has authority under 31 
U.S.C. 5318(a)(7) to ``prescribe an appropriate exemption from a 
requirement under this subchapter,'' which includes the CTA in 
section 5336. To the extent the CTA can be read to require existing 
companies to report company applicants, FinCEN has determined that 
an exemption from such requirement is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of all these considerations, the final rule specifies that 
existing entities formed or registered before the effective date of the 
final rule are not required to report company applicant information.
c. Foreign Pooled Investment Vehicles
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(iii) contained a 
special rule for foreign pooled investment vehicles, which implements 
31 U.S.C. 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.
    Comments Received. A few commenters representing industry groups 
who sought clarity on this issue during the ANPRM comment process 
expressed the view that the revised text presented in the NPRM 
addressed their concerns about the scope of this special rule, and 
urged its adoption as proposed. One commenter found the proposed rule 
to be unclear and requested additional language stating that a foreign 
pooled investment vehicle registered to do business in a state or 
Tribal jurisdiction could be required to submit BOI to FinCEN. Another 
commenter suggested that because foreign pooled investment vehicles are 
designed to aggregate funds from investors, addressing the risks of 
such entities requires collecting information on the individuals who 
control the funding of the vehicle. The commenter proposed language 
mandating disclosure of ``the individual who has the greatest authority 
to collect, invest, distribute, return, and otherwise direct the funds 
of the [foreign pooled investment vehicle].''
    Final Rule. FinCEN is adopting 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(iii) as 
proposed (renumbered as 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(2)(iii)) and believes that 
the commenters' suggested changes are unnecessary. With regard to 
clarifying that only foreign pooled investment vehicles that are 
registered with states or Tribal jurisdictions may be required to 
report BOI, FinCEN believes that this point is inherent in the 
definition of reporting company. An entity formed under the law of a 
foreign country is only a reporting company and required to report BOI 
if it is registered to do business in a state or Tribal jurisdiction.
    Similarly, FinCEN believes that the suggested change regarding 
reporting of individuals who control the funding of foreign pooled 
investment vehicles is already contained in the substantial control 
definition. Substantial control may consist of directing, determining, 
or having substantial influence over important decisions made by the 
reporting company. These include, for example, ``major expenditures or 
investments'' and ``the selection or termination of business lines or 
ventures'' of the reporting company, among other things. Any person 
that can exercise control over the funding of foreign pooled investment 
vehicles would fall within the definition of substantial control, and 
therefore, FinCEN believes that further clarification is unnecessary.
v. Contents of Updated or Corrected Reports
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(4) specified the content 
of updated and corrected reports, providing that if any required 
information in an initial report is inaccurate or there is a change 
with respect to 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. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(4) also 
provided that if a reporting company meets the criteria for any 
exemption from the definition of reporting company subsequent to the 
filing of an initial report, its updated report shall include a 
notification that the entity is no longer a reporting company.
    The NPRM sought comment on whether there are any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rules that would minimize their impact on 
small entities while accomplishing the objectives of the CTA, and also 
on whether the burden of the 30-day update requirement is justified.
    Comments Received. A number of commenters emphasized the burden 
associated with having to update the information they report about 
company applicants whenever it changes, in light of the fact that a 
reporting company often has no ongoing relationship with such 
individuals. Commenters noted that in such instances, a reporting 
company would not have visibility into changes to company applicant 
information, and a company applicant would have no obligation to 
provide updated information to the reporting company. Given these 
practical challenges, some commenters suggested that the requirement 
for updated reports be limited to beneficial owners and reporting 
companies, and exclude company applicants. Other commenters suggested 
that the responsibility for reporting changes to company applicant 
information should rest with the company applicant, not the reporting 
company. In other words, FinCEN should require company applicants to 
either (1) provide updated information to the reporting company, or (2) 
obtain a FinCEN identifier and provide this to the reporting company, 
so that that there is no need for a reporting company to report updated 
information regarding company applicants.\144\ A couple of

[[Page 59524]]

commenters also suggested that if a reporting company makes a 
reasonable and good faith effort to obtain company applicant 
information for updated reports and provides proof of such efforts, the 
reporting company should be deemed to have satisfied the requirements 
and not be subject to penalties if that information is later determined 
to be inaccurate or incomplete. Finally, at least one commenter 
suggested that, in general, a reporting company should only have to 
report updates or corrections to material information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ At least one commenter made a similar point with respect 
to updated or corrected reports related to beneficial owners, 
suggesting that where a reporting company has disclosed a beneficial 
owner's FinCEN identifier, liability associated with updating 
information linked to that FinCEN identifier should rest solely with 
the individual to whom the FinCEN identifier relates, not with the 
reporting company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Rule. FinCEN is adopting 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(4), renumbered as 
31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3), with certain modifications. First, the final 
rule clarifies the reporting requirements by separating 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(3) into three paragraphs; adding cross-references to 31 CFR 
1010.380(a), which contains the timing requirements for updated and 
corrected reports; and adding certain other clarifying language. 
Second, as an additional measure to minimize the impact of the final 
rule on small businesses, the final rule specifies that reporting 
companies need only update information concerning the reporting company 
or its beneficial owners. Reporting companies therefore will not be 
required to update previously reported information about their company 
applicants. This change in reporting requirements only applies to 
updated reports; reporting companies will still be required to correct 
any inaccurate information previously reported about their company 
applicants.
    As explained in Section III.B.iv.b. above, the final rule 
eliminates the company applicant reporting requirement for existing 
reporting companies, but not for companies created or registered after 
the effective date of the final rule. Those companies must report 
company applicant information, and the CTA requires this information to 
be updated when it changes.\145\ However, FinCEN has authority to 
prescribe an appropriate exemption from the statutory updating 
requirement, and FinCEN has determined that it is appropriate to do 
so.\146\ FinCEN is persuaded by comments that reporting companies would 
face significant challenges in updating previously reported information 
about their company applicants. FinCEN agrees that because a reporting 
company and its company applicant may not have an ongoing relationship, 
it would often be difficult for a reporting company to ascertain when 
there has been a change to company applicant information and to require 
such company applicant to provide updated information for reporting. 
Further, FinCEN believes that updated information about a company 
applicant would be of limited value for law enforcement over time for 
the same reasons that initial reports of company applicant information 
by pre-existing reporting companies would be of limited value to law 
enforcement. Therefore, the benefits of this information would not 
outweigh the burdens that the requirement would impose on small 
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D).
    \146\ Under 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7), FinCEN may ``prescribe an 
appropriate exemption from a requirement under this subchapter,'' 
which includes the CTA in section 5336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN also considered comments that highlighted the utility of the 
FinCEN identifier with respect to updating previously reported 
information, and that suggested the requirement for updated and 
corrected reports be limited to material information only. With respect 
to the former, FinCEN notes that the statute does not authorize FinCEN 
to require that individuals obtain and report their FinCEN identifier. 
The statute is also clear that reporting companies are to report 
changes with respect to any required information, not just material 
changes.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. FinCEN Identifier
    The CTA requires that FinCEN provide a unique identifier (FinCEN 
ID) upon request to: (1) an individual who provides FinCEN with the 
same information as is required from a beneficial owner or company 
applicant, and (2) any reporting company that has provided its BOI to 
FinCEN. In certain instances, beneficial owners, company applicants, 
and reporting companies may provide a FinCEN ID to a reporting company 
in lieu of providing required BOI.
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(5) set forth rules 
regarding obtaining and using a FinCEN ID. Consistent with the CTA, 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(5)(i) provided that an individual may 
obtain a FinCEN ID by submitting to FinCEN an application containing 
the information that the individual would otherwise have to provide to 
a reporting company if the individual were a beneficial owner or 
company applicant of the reporting company. It also provided that a 
reporting company can obtain a FinCEN ID from FinCEN when it submits a 
filing as a reporting company or any time thereafter, and it specified 
that each FinCEN ID shall be specific to each individual or company.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(5)(ii) outlined the permissible uses of 
the FinCEN ID. Specifically, after an individual has provided 
information to FinCEN to obtain a FinCEN ID, the individual may provide 
the FinCEN ID to a reporting company and the reporting company may 
report the FinCEN ID in lieu of the identifying information required to 
be reported about that individual. For instance, a beneficial owner can 
provide his or her FinCEN ID to the reporting company, and the 
reporting company can report the FinCEN ID to FinCEN in lieu of 
reporting that individual's name, date of birth, address, unique 
identifying number, and image of the identification document. As noted 
in the proposed rule, the underlying information associated with a 
FinCEN ID would still be available to FinCEN. Proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(5)(ii) also provided that those who obtain a FinCEN ID are 
required to update or correct the information they submit in their 
application, and proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(2) retained the statutory 
definition and defined ``FinCEN identifier'' as the unique identifying 
number assigned by FinCEN to an individual or legal entity under this 
section.
    In addition, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(C) incorporated the 
language of 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(C), which specifies how a reporting 
company's FinCEN ID is to be used. The proposed rule provided that 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 holds an interest 
in the reporting company, then the reporting company can report the 
FinCEN ID of that intermediary entity in lieu of reporting the 
company's beneficial owner.
    Comments Received. Commenters requested clarity regarding various 
aspects of the FinCEN ID, including the application process, 
responsibility for updates, and whether reporting the FinCEN ID would 
be mandatory. Some commenters expressed concerns about misuse of the 
FinCEN ID, including whether a reporting company might use FinCEN IDs 
for intermediary companies in a manner that might result in greater 
secrecy, or incomplete or misleading disclosures. Various commenters 
requested examples to illustrate how the FinCEN ID would be used. 
Others asked

[[Page 59525]]

what the purpose of the FinCEN ID was, and whether it was needed given 
the security of the information in the database. Some commenters asked 
about the applicability of the FinCEN ID to company applicants and 
entities such as law firms and corporate service providers. Some 
commenters encouraged FinCEN to provide requested FinCEN IDs in a 
prompt manner and to also provide a draft application for public 
comment and training. Multiple commenters emphasized that the 
underlying information behind the FinCEN ID should be available to all 
authorized users, including financial institutions.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts proposed 1010.380(b)(5)(i) 
(renumbered as 1010.380(b)(4)(i)) with minor clarifying edits, and 
proposed 1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(A)-(C) (renumbered as 
1010.380(b)(4)(ii)(A)-(C)) and 1010.380(f)(2) as proposed. The final 
rule adopts proposed 1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(D) with additional clarifying 
edits regarding the requirements to update and correct FinCEN ID 
information, set forth as a separate paragraph at final 
1010.380(b)(4)(iii).
    FinCEN intends to provide individuals and reporting companies that 
choose to request a FinCEN ID with information about the application 
process, the processing time, the procedure for updating a FinCEN ID, 
and other procedural questions. FinCEN will also consider the request 
to provide examples of how individuals and reporting companies may use 
the FinCEN ID as it considers future guidance and FAQs. With respect to 
company applicants, FinCEN believes the statutory text and final rule 
are clear that the definition of company applicant is an individual, 
which further supports the goal of the CTA to populate the database 
with highly useful information that assists law enforcement and others 
in identifying those individuals associated with reporting company 
formation or registration. FinCEN also believes the statutory text is 
clear that the underlying BOI is available to authorized users, and the 
FinCEN ID is available to those who request it for the purposes 
identified in the statute and final rule.
    With respect to the additional clarifying edits to proposed 
1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(D) (now set forth as a separate paragraph at final 
1010.380(b)(4)(iii)), FinCEN has clarified that individuals with a 
FinCEN ID shall make updates or corrections to their information by 
submitting an updated application for a FinCEN ID to FinCEN, subject to 
the same timelines and terms as updates or corrections to a BOI report 
by a reporting company.
    The final rule does not adopt proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(B) 
and (C) regarding use of FinCEN IDs for entities. Commenters have 
identified concerns about how these parts of the proposed rule could be 
applied in ways that result in incomplete or misleading disclosures. 
Several commenters noted that the proposed language may be confusing 
and may pose problems when a reporting company's ownership structure 
involves multiple beneficial owners and/or intermediate entities. 
FinCEN is continuing to consider these issues and intends to address 
them before the effective date. Accordingly, FinCEN has reserved 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(B) in this final rule.

C. Beneficial Owners

    Consistent with the CTA, the final rule defines a ``beneficial 
owner,'' with respect to a reporting company, as ``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.'' \148\ Each reporting 
company will be required to identify as a beneficial owner any 
individual who satisfies either of these two components of the 
definition, unless the individual is subject to an exclusion from the 
definition of ``beneficial owner.'' FinCEN expects that a reporting 
company will always identify at least one beneficial owner under the 
``substantial control'' component, even if all other individuals are 
subject to an exclusion or fail to satisfy the ``ownership interests'' 
component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Substantial Control
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1) set forth three 
specific indicators of ``substantial control'': service as a senior 
officer of a reporting company; authority over the appointment or 
removal of any senior officer or a majority or dominant minority of the 
board of directors (or similar body) of a reporting company; and 
direction, determination, or decision of, or substantial influence 
over, important matters affecting a reporting company. The proposed 
rule also included a catch-all provision to ensure consideration of any 
other forms that substantial control might take beyond the criteria 
specifically listed. Consistent with the CTA, proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(2) also made clear that an individual can exercise 
substantial control directly or indirectly through a variety of means. 
It included an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of examples of how 
substantial control could be exercised.
    Comments Received. A number of commenters supported the proposed 
rule's definition of ``substantial control.'' In particular, they noted 
that the broad and flexible definition appropriately accounts for the 
fact that substantial control might take many forms, including forms 
that are not specifically listed, and they supported a definition that 
does not arbitrarily limit the number of individuals who may be 
reported as having substantial control, which would help prevent bad 
actors from evading identification.
    Other commenters raised concerns about the practicality of 
implementing this definition. They maintained that this definition of 
the term ``substantial control'' would be inconsistent with other 
federal statutory and regulatory definitions, potentially confusing, or 
overly broad. These commenters reiterated concerns about burdens in 
applying the definition of ``substantial control'' and expressed the 
view that the definition was not rooted in state corporate-formation 
law or other federal statutes and regulations that use ``control'' 
concepts. Some commenters stated that the indicators of substantial 
control in the proposed definition focused on the potential to exercise 
substantial control rather than on the actual exercise of it. A few 
commenters suggested adding an express indicator regarding control over 
funds or assets of a company. Multiple commenters requested 
clarification on applying the definition to specific circumstances, 
including indirect control, agency relationships, and substantial 
control through trust arrangements.
    Commenters suggested alternative approaches. One commenter 
suggested that FinCEN leave the term ``substantial control'' undefined. 
Other commenters urged FinCEN to adopt the approach reflected in the 
``control'' prong of the 2016 CDD Rule, which required that new legal 
entity customers of a financial institution provide beneficial 
ownership information for any one individual ``with significant 
responsibility to control'' the entity. These commenters argued that 
such an approach would be more efficient and simplify compliance. 
Commenters also suggested that FinCEN take an iterative approach, 
starting with the approach reflected in the 2016 CDD Rule and then 
expanding the types of persons that may have substantial control over a 
reporting company if strong evidence emerged that supported such 
expansion.

[[Page 59526]]

    More general concerns were raised as well. Some commenters argued 
that the CTA limits FinCEN to collecting beneficial ownership 
information on a single person because 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A) defines 
``beneficial owner'' as, ``with respect to an entity, an individual who 
. . . exercises substantial control or owns or controls not less than 
25 percent of the ownership interests of the entity'' (emphasis added). 
Commenters also contended that FinCEN's proposed definition would 
impose significant burdens on financial institutions that spent years 
updating systems, procedures, and controls to implement the 2016 CDD 
Rule.
    Multiple commenters raised concerns with the first indicator--
service as a senior officer of a reporting company. In particular, 
commenters expressed the view that the definition of ``senior officer'' 
in proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(8) may be overinclusive, particularly in 
the context of small corporations and LLCs. These commenters 
recommended either deleting the indicator or limiting the definition of 
``senior officer'' to the chief executive officer, chief operating 
officer, or chief financial officer of a reporting company (or persons 
exercising similar functions). Some commenters asserted that 
secretaries and general counsels often have ministerial or advisory 
functions with very little control of the company. Other commenters 
stated that it was difficult to reconcile the inclusion of senior 
officers as an indicator in light of the employee exception to the 
definition of ``beneficial owner'' at proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(4)(iii). Those commenters asserted that a senior officer is 
normally an employee and would fall within the scope of the exception. 
One commenter noted that the proposed rule defined ``employee'' using 
federal tax rules, which specifically provide that that term includes 
officers.
    Multiple commenters requested that the second indicator be 
clarified. As proposed, the second indicator provided that an 
individual exercises substantial control if the individual has 
authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a 
majority or dominant minority of the board of directors (or similar 
body) of a reporting company. Some commenters expressed confusion about 
the meaning of ``dominant minority,'' and questioned why the authority 
to appoint a dominant minority of the board of directors would 
constitute substantial control.
    Some commenters supported the third indicator, which would treat as 
a beneficial owner an individual who can direct, determine, decide, or 
have substantial influence over important matters affecting a reporting 
company. These commenters supported the third indicator because it 
represents a comprehensive and flexible approach that applies to a 
broad range of circumstances. Other commenters either requested clarity 
or opposed the use of this indicator, because they believed it could 
significantly widen the definition of substantial control, encompass 
day-to-day business decisions that do not meet an adequate threshold of 
substantial control, and sweep in silent investors, employees, or 
contractual counterparties. Commenters noted concerns about the 
inclusion of ``substantial influence'' as a factor and the implications 
for minority shareholder protections that are defined rights intended 
to protect minority investors.
    As to the catch-all provision, some commenters supported it as 
essential to enable consideration, and require reporting, of improper 
means of control, which might include economic pressure on company 
shareholders or employees, coercion, bribery, or threats of bodily 
harm. Others argued that the catch-all provision is too vague, renders 
the overall definition circular, or introduces greater compliance 
uncertainty, and accordingly that it should be removed.
    With respect to proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2), one commenter 
indicated that this paragraph could lead to confusion because the 
principle of indirect control is already found in proposed paragraph 
(d)(1). This commenter suggested that paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) be 
consolidated and simplified to remove the reference to ``direct or 
indirect'' control. Another commenter suggested that FinCEN provide 
guidance or examples to explain further the concept of indirect 
substantial control. Yet another commenter urged FinCEN not to extend 
that concept to the particular circumstance of control through a trust 
arrangement, at least not until the review process set forth in AML Act 
section 6502(d) has a chance to reach conclusions about the 
advisability of reporting requirements in connection with trusts.
    Final Rule. The final 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1) adopts the proposed 
rule largely as proposed, but with modifications to clarify and 
streamline application of the rule in general, to focus the 
applicability of the senior officer element of the definition of 
``substantial control,'' and to clarify the issue of substantial 
control through trust arrangements. FinCEN believes that the definition 
of substantial control in the final rule strikes the appropriate 
overall balance: it is based on established legal principles and usages 
of this term in a range of contexts (as explained in the NPRM) and 
provides specificity that should assist with compliance, while at the 
same time being flexible enough to account for the wide variety of ways 
that individuals can exercise substantial control over an entity.
    The final rule makes organizational changes to 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(1) and (d)(2) and creates a new paragraph (d)(1)(i), 
entitled ``Definition of Substantial Control,'' which lists the 
indicators previously located in paragraph (d)(1). Each of these 
indicators supports the basic goal of requiring a reporting company to 
identify the key individuals who stand behind the reporting company and 
direct its actions. The first indicator identifies the individuals with 
nominal or de jure authority, and the second and third indicators 
identify the individuals with functional or de facto authority.
    As to the first indicator (i.e., service as a senior officer of a 
reporting company), the final rule adopts the proposed language.\149\ 
This indicator provides clear, bright-line guidance on one category of 
persons who exercise a significant degree of control over the 
operations of a reporting company through executive functions. This 
approach is intended to streamline the determination of persons who 
might also exercise substantial control through the other indicators in 
the definition, and thereby reduce burden for reporting companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1) was also revised to enhance 
clarity by rephrasing the introduction (``An individual exercises 
substantial control . . . if . . .'') and making conforming changes 
to each indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FinCEN has evaluated concerns raised about the scope 
of the definition of ``senior officer'' in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(f)(8) and agrees with commenters that the roles of corporate 
secretary and treasurer tend to entail ministerial functions with 
little control of the company. FinCEN has therefore omitted those roles 
from the definition of ``senior officer.'' FinCEN considers the role of 
general counsel to be ordinarily more substantial, and has therefore 
retained this role as part of the definition of ``senior officer.'' 
FinCEN notes that the title of the officer ultimately is not 
dispositive, as the definition of ``senior officer'' and other 
indicators of substantial control make clear. Rather, the underlying 
question is whether the individual is exercising the authority or 
performing the functions of a senior officer, or otherwise has 
authority indicative of substantial

[[Page 59527]]

control. The final rule also incorporates changes to the ``employee'' 
exception to the definition of ``beneficial owner'' at proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(4)(iii) to make more clear that persons who are senior 
officers are not subject to this exception, as discussed in Section 
III.C.iii.c. below.
    As to the second indicator (i.e., authority to appoint or remove 
certain individuals), the final rule adopts the proposed language with 
the deletion of the reference to authority to appoint or remove a 
``dominant minority'' of the board of directors. A number of commenters 
raised questions about what constitutes a ``dominant minority,'' 
including whether such a dominant minority has the ability to exercise 
substantial control over a reporting company. FinCEN agrees with the 
concerns about ambiguities in the term ``dominant minority.'' 
Commenters also asked about the role of minority shareholder 
protections. In view of these comments, and with the objective of 
ensuring clarity and simplicity to the extent possible, FinCEN is 
deleting the reference to authority over a dominant minority from the 
final rule.
    As to the third indicator (i.e., directing, determining, or having 
substantial influence over decisions), the final rule adopts the 
proposed rule with amendments to enhance clarity. FinCEN considered a 
range of comments that requested changes to further define certain 
terms or to limit the scope of the indicator overall, as well as those 
that noted concerns about the meaning of terms such as ``substantial 
influence'' and ``important matters affecting'' the reporting company.
    The final rule incorporates changes to the third indicator to 
clarify that it applies to individuals who ``direct, determine, or have 
substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting 
company.'' FinCEN replaced the phrase ``important matters affecting'' 
the reporting company (which had been drawn from regulations 
implementing laws governing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States \150\) with ``important decisions made by'' the reporting 
company in order to address uncertainty identified by commenters that 
external events, actions of customers or suppliers, or other actions 
beyond a reporting company's control could ``affect'' a reporting 
company. FinCEN does not believe these types of external actions are a 
form of substantial control for which reporting is warranted. Instead, 
the final rule focuses on important internal decisions made by the 
reporting company, which is consistent with the illustrative list of 
examples of types of important decisions in 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(1)(i)(C)(1)-(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ See 31 CFR 800.208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also retains the ``substantial influence'' language 
in the third indicator, because FinCEN envisions situations in which 
individuals may not have the power to direct or determine important 
decisions made by the reporting company, but may play a significant 
role in the decision-making process and outcomes with respect to those 
important decisions. For example, a sanctioned individual may direct an 
advisor to form a company to engage in business activities, with 
instructions to omit the sanctioned individual from any corporate-
formation documents. The sanctioned individual, through the adviser, 
may continue to have substantial influence over important decisions of 
the reporting company, even if the individual does not direct or 
determine those decisions. A reporting company may also be structured 
such that multiple individuals exercise essentially equal authority 
over the entity's decisions--in which case each individual would likely 
be considered to have substantial influence over the decisions even 
though no single individual directs or determines them. This approach 
is consistent with the other prong of the CTA's ``beneficial owner'' 
definition (i.e., ownership or control of at least 25 percent of the 
entity's ownership interests), which recognizes that something short of 
majority ownership can still be indicative of beneficial ownership of a 
reporting company.
    Some commenters inquired about the treatment of tax professionals 
and other similarly situated professionals with an agency relationship 
to a reporting company who may exercise substantial influence in 
practical terms when they perform services within the scope of their 
duties. In particular, some tax and legal professionals may be formally 
designated as agents under IRS Form 2848 (Power of Attorney and 
Declaration of Representative). FinCEN does not envision that the 
performance of ordinary, arms-length advisory or other third-party 
professional services to a reporting company would provide an 
individual with the power to direct or determine, or have substantial 
influence over, important decisions of a reporting company. In such a 
case, the senior officers or board members of a reporting company would 
remain primarily responsible for making the decisions based on the 
external input provided by such third-party service providers. 
Moreover, if a tax or legal professional is designated as an agent of 
the reporting company, the exception to the ``beneficial owner'' 
definition provided in 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii) with respect to 
nominees, intermediaries, custodians, and agents would apply.
    In addition, the final rule does not modify the substance of 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1)(iii)(A)-(F), which provided specific 
examples of indicators that relate broadly to substantial control over 
important financial, structural, or organizational matters of the 
reporting company. This non-exhaustive list of examples is intended to 
clarify the types of company decisions FinCEN considers important, and 
thus relevant to an analysis of whether an individual has substantial 
control over a reporting company under the third indicator. Reporting 
companies should be guided by these specific examples, but they should 
also consider how individuals could exercise substantial control in 
other ways as well.
    Fourth, the final rule also retains the catch-all provision of the 
``substantial control'' definition in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(1)(iv). This provision recognizes that control exercised in 
novel and less conventional ways can still be substantial. It also 
could apply to the existence or emergence of varying and flexible 
governance structures, such as series limited liability companies and 
decentralized autonomous organizations, for which different indicators 
of control may be more relevant. As noted by commenters, paragraph (iv) 
also operates to address any efforts to evade or circumvent FinCEN's 
requirements and is intended to prevent sophisticated bad actors from 
structuring their relationships to exercise substantial control of 
reporting companies without the formalities typically associated with 
such control in ordinary companies. Such anti-evasion and anti-
circumvention provisions are common in other regulatory frameworks that 
have proven administrable over time,\151\ and, viewed in such a 
context, paragraph (iv) serves an important purpose to disincentivize 
unusual structures that may only serve to

[[Page 59528]]

facilitate illegal activities. FinCEN recognizes that, as one commenter 
noted, additional guidance or FAQs may help to provide additional 
clarity to reporting companies in specific circumstances. As it 
implements and ensures compliance with the final rule, FinCEN expects 
to gain greater experience with the spectrum of arrangements or 
relationships that bad actors may establish to circumvent reporting 
requirements and engage in illegal activity. FinCEN will assess the 
need for additional guidance, notices, or FAQs accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Cf., e.g., 31 CFR 800.208(a) (Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States) (defining ``control'' to include, 
inter alia, ``formal or informal arrangements to act in concert, or 
other means, to determine, direct, or decide important matters 
affecting an entity; in particular, but without limitation, to 
determine, direct, take, reach, or cause decisions regarding the 
following [listed] matters, or any other similarly important matters 
affecting an entity'' (emphases added)); 17 CFR 230.405 (Securities 
and Exchange Commission) (defining ``control'' to include ``the 
power to direct or cause the direction of the management and 
policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting 
securities, by contract, or otherwise'' (emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, FinCEN considered the comments that stated a preference for 
a definition of substantial control comparable to the approach laid out 
in the 2016 CDD Rule. Under the ``control'' prong of the 2016 CDD Rule, 
new legal entity customers of a financial institution must provide BOI 
for ``[a] single individual with significant responsibility to control, 
manage, or direct a legal entity customer.'' \152\ Several comments 
noted that the approach described in the 2016 CDD Rule could simplify 
compliance for reporting companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ 31 CFR 1010.230(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN has concluded that incorporating the 2016 CDD Rule's 
numerical limitation for identifying beneficial owners via substantial 
control is inconsistent with the CTA's objective of establishing a 
comprehensive BOI database for all beneficial owners of reporting 
companies.\153\ FinCEN believes that limiting reporting of individuals 
in substantial control to one person, as in the 2016 CDD Rule--or 
indeed imposing any other numerical limit--would artificially restrict 
the reporting of beneficial owners who may exercise substantial control 
over an entity, and any such artificial ceiling could become a means of 
evasion or circumvention. Requiring reporting companies to identify all 
individuals who exercise substantial control would--as the CTA 
envisions--provide law enforcement and others a much more complete 
picture of who makes important decisions at a reporting company.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(F)(iv)(I)-(II) (``In 
promulgating the [BOI] regulations . . . , the Secretary of the 
Treasury shall, to the greatest extent practicable[,] . . . collect 
[BOI] . . . in a form and manner that ensures the information is 
highly useful in--(I) facilitating important national security, 
intelligence, and law enforcement activities; and (II) confirming 
beneficial ownership information provided to financial institutions 
to facilitate . . . compliance . . . .'' (emphasis added)); 31 
U.S.C. 5336(b)(4)(B)(ii) (``The Secretary of the Treasury shall . . 
. in promulgating the regulations[,] . . . to the extent 
practicable, . . . ensure the beneficial ownership information 
reported to FinCEN is accurate, complete, and highly useful. 
''(emphasis added)).
    \154\ See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 8471(1), (3), (4) (defining 
``beneficiary,'' ``participant,'' and ``person'' each as ``an 
individual . . .''); 12 U.S.C. 3423(a)(1)(A), (J), (L)-(N) (defining 
``Bank Secrecy officer,'' ``insurance producer,'' ``investment 
adviser representative,'' ``registered representative,'' and 
``senior citizen'' each as ``an individual . . .''); 31 U.S.C. 
3730(e)(4)(B) (defining ``original source'' as ``an individual . . 
.''); 31 U.S.C. 3801(a)(4) (defining ``investigating official'' as 
``an individual . . .''); 42 U.S.C. 12713(b)(1)-(3) (defining 
``displaced homemaker,'' ``first-time homebuyer,'' and ``single 
parent'' each as ``an individual . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some comments maintained that the CTA prohibits FinCEN from 
requiring the identification of more than a single person as a 
beneficial owner by virtue of being in substantial control of the 
reporting company because the statute defines ``beneficial owner'' as 
``an individual'' who exercises substantial control or owns or controls 
at least 25% of a reporting company's ownership interests.\155\ But the 
CTA does not mandate a single-individual reporting approach with 
respect to substantial control. The statute's reporting requirement 
specifically calls for the identification of ``each beneficial owner of 
the applicable reporting company,'' not just one.\156\ Many 
definitional provisions in the U.S. Code use formulations comparable to 
the CTA's reference to ``an individual'' in contexts where the plural 
is clearly indicated by the overall structure of the statute.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added).
    \156\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
    \157\ See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 8471(1), (3), (4) (defining 
``beneficiary,'' ``participant,'' and ``person'' each as ``an 
individual . . .''); 12 U.S.C. 3423(a)(1)(A), (J), (L)-(N) (defining 
``Bank Secrecy officer,'' ``insurance producer,'' ``investment 
adviser representative,'' ``registered representative,'' and 
``senior citizen'' each as ``an individual . . .''); 31 U.S.C. 
3730(e)(4)(B) (defining ``original source'' as ``an individual . . 
.''); 31 U.S.C. 3801(a)(4) (defining ``investigating official'' as 
``an individual . . .''); 42 U.S.C. 12713(b)(1)-(3) (defining 
``displaced homemaker,'' ``first-time homebuyer,'' and ``single 
parent'' each as ``an individual . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the phrase ``an individual'' precedes both the 
``substantial control'' prong of the definition and the 25 percent 
ownership prong. If the phrase limited the reporting requirement to a 
single individual, that would mean either that a reporting company 
would only be required to report a single 25 percent owner as well as a 
single person in substantial control of the reporting company, or would 
only be required to report a single beneficial owner--either one person 
in substantial control or one person that is a 25 percent owner. This 
would not serve the CTA's fundamental objective of identifying each 
beneficial owner of a reporting company.\158\ FinCEN therefore believes 
that requiring the identification of all individuals in substantial 
control of a reporting company is both permitted by the CTA and 
consistent with its purpose and with FinCEN's objective to create a 
highly useful database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See Public Law 116-283, Section 6402(2)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, FinCEN considered the comments maintaining that the 
definition of ``substantial control'' might be inconsistent with other 
federal statutes and regulations that use ``control'' concepts. While 
definitions of ``control'' found elsewhere in the United States Code 
and the Code of Federal Regulations can be informative, they are not 
dispositive here. FinCEN is charged with clarifying the meaning of 
``substantial control'' as used in 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A)(i) to define 
what constitutes a ``beneficial owner'' for purposes of implementing 
the CTA. ``Substantial control'' in the context of beneficial ownership 
is not necessarily identical to ``control'' in other contexts. Through 
the use of the term ``substantial control'' and the statutory structure 
built around it, the CTA clearly manifests an expectation of a 
reporting requirement that accounts for a wide array of avenues of 
control.\159\ FinCEN reviewed a regulatory definition of ``control'' 
used by the Securities and Exchange Commission,\160\ for example, but 
found that particular definition to be too narrowly focused for this 
purpose. Even so, it bears noting that the final rule's definition of 
``substantial control'' overlaps in certain respects with some of the 
federal ``control'' provisions raised in the comments.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A), (b)(1)(F)(iv), 
(b)(4)(B)(ii).
    \160\ 17 CFR 230.405 (defining ``control'' as ``the possession, 
direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of 
the management and policies of a person, whether through the 
ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise'').
    \161\ E.g., 50 U.S.C. 4565(a)(3) (``direct or indirect,'' 
``exercised or not exercised,'' ``to determine, direct, or decide 
important matters affecting an entity''); 17 CFR 230.405 (``direct 
or indirect,'' ``possession . . . of the power to direct or cause 
the direction of the management and policies,'' ``or otherwise'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN also considered a comment that suggested adopting an 
iterative approach in which the rule would initially start with an 
approach comparable to the 2016 CDD Rule, with an expectation of 
amendments over time to expand the number of individuals that could be 
reported as beneficial owners under the ``substantial control'' 
definition. In addition to the threshold issue that the CTA mandates 
the identification of ``each beneficial owner,'' \162\ FinCEN believes 
that such an approach would ultimately lead to greater burdens and 
confusion for reporting companies, which would need

[[Page 59529]]

to repeatedly commit additional resources to understand the changing 
regulatory landscape. Moreover, it would lead to a less effective 
database. One shortcoming of the 2016 CDD Rule is that it omits persons 
that have substantial control of a reporting company, but are not 
reported because another party has already been reported as having 
substantial control. Furthermore, FinCEN notes that the definition of 
reporting company applies only to legal entities that have 20 or fewer 
employees and less than $5 million in gross receipts or sales as 
reflected in the previous year's federal tax returns, and that do not 
otherwise benefit from the exemptions described in the regulations. 
While size and complexity do not have to go hand in hand, FinCEN 
assesses that in general smaller entities have less complex ownership 
and control structures, so the definition of reporting company tends to 
limit the potential number of beneficial owners who would exercise 
substantial control at a given reporting company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also renumbers 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2), ``Direct or 
Indirect Exercise of Substantial Control,'' as 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(1)(ii) and makes certain modifications to the paragraph. 
First, the final rule inserts the clause ``including as a trustee of a 
trust or similar arrangement'' into the introductory text in paragraph 
(d)(1)(ii). This addition underscores that the trustee of a trust or 
similar arrangement can exercise substantial control over a reporting 
company through the types of relationships outlined in the paragraph. 
Depending on the particular facts and circumstances, trusts may serve 
as a mechanism for the exercise of substantial control. Furthermore, 
``trusts or similar arrangements'' can take a wide range of forms. 
Accordingly, FinCEN finds it appropriate--and directly responsive to 
comments that requested clarification on this point--to specify that a 
trustee of a trust can, in fact, exercise substantial control over a 
reporting company through the exercise of his or her powers as a 
trustee over the corpus of the trust, for example, by exercising 
control rights associated with shares held in trust.
    Second, the final rule individually enumerates the non-exclusive 
list of means of exercising substantial control described in final 
paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A)-(F) (rather than listing them in a single block 
of text, as in the proposed paragraph (d)(2)), without making 
additional substantive changes. The final rule also deletes the phrase 
``dominant minority'' in subparagraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) to conform to the 
same deletion made in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C). In the interests of 
clarity, the provision now refers to ``a majority of the voting power 
or voting rights of the reporting company.'' The final rule also 
removes as redundant the last sentence in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(2), which stated that having the right or ability to 
exercise substantial control was equivalent to the exercise of such 
substantial control.
    Finally, a number of comments expressed concern that the perceived 
complexity of the ``substantial control'' definition (as well as the 
definition of ``ownership interest'') would make it difficult and 
burdensome for reporting companies to apply that definition to their 
own circumstances and determine who their beneficial owners are. FinCEN 
assesses, however, that applying the beneficial owner rules will be a 
straightforward exercise for many reporting companies. Most reporting 
companies will have relatively small numbers of (or no) employees or 
simple management and ownership structures. The exemptions from the 
definition of ``reporting company,'' particularly the exemption for 
large operating companies, tend to exclude larger and more complex 
entities from the beneficial ownership reporting requirements. While 
some smaller entities may have similarly complex management and 
ownership structures, FinCEN expects that most smaller entities with 
conventional structures will be able to readily identify their 
beneficial owners. The final rule was carefully drafted with the 
objective of minimizing potential burden on reporting entities while 
also pursuing the other goals mandated by the CTA.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(F), (b)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More broadly, the definition of ``beneficial owner'' under final 31 
CFR 1010.380(d) specifies multiple ways in which an individual may be a 
beneficial owner of a reporting company, in order to encompass a wide 
range of possible scenarios where substantial control may be exercised, 
or where ownership interests may be owned or controlled directly or 
indirectly through complex arrangements. However, in cases where a 
reporting company has straightforward operations and a simple and 
direct ownership structure, the application of paragraph (d) is 
similarly straightforward. For example, suppose that George and Winona, 
husband and wife, and their son Sam each directly own one-third of 
Farragut Co., a corporation through which they run their small family 
farm. Sam serves as the president, Winona is the chief operating 
officer, and George is the general counsel. There are no other 
individuals who serve as senior officers or exercise substantial 
control through any other arrangement. Here, George, Winona, and Sam 
would be the only beneficial owners of the reporting company. If Sam 
steps down from his role as president but maintains his ownership 
interest, and his brother James is named president of Farragut Co., 
then James would also be a beneficial owner.
    As another example, suppose Sarah and Skyler each directly own 
fifty percent of Adelaide's Cement, Inc., a small, closely held 
construction supply company. Sarah is the president, Skyler is chief 
executive officer, and Adelaide's Cement has no other officers. Nathan 
has been manager and chief clerk for forty years, responsible for the 
day-to-day operations and staffing of the company. Nathan has the 
authority to hire floor staff, but not senior officers. He controls the 
petty cash and payroll disbursements and is authorized to be the sole 
signatory for checks under the amount of $5,000. He does not have 
authority to make major expenditures or substantially influence the 
overall direction of the company. In this scenario, Sarah and Skyler 
are beneficial owners, and Nathan is not a beneficial owner.
    While the final rule should be straightforward to apply in a wide 
range of similar cases, FinCEN recognizes that there will be 
circumstances in which reporting companies are structured or managed in 
a way that generates more complexity or uncertainty regarding the scope 
of the application of the rule. Exercising substantial control or 
owning ownership interests through an intermediate entity,\164\ 
conferring special rights in connection with a financing 
arrangement,\165\ issuing puts, calls, straddles, or other 
options,\166\ and other circumstances may make it harder to determine 
beneficial owners. In such circumstances, however, reporting companies 
or their beneficial owners ordinarily seek the advice of tax and legal 
professionals to assess the advantages and disadvantages of such 
business choices and choose to enter into those arrangements despite 
the additional complexity they entail because they confer benefits that 
more than compensate. In these cases, FinCEN expects that the reporting 
requirements under the final rule will impose some additional burdens, 
but that these additional burdens should not be unusual for businesses 
that make decisions which increase the

[[Page 59530]]

complexity of a company's operations, management, or financing. While 
FinCEN has worked to avoid unnecessary burdens on reporting companies, 
fulfilling the CTA's directives to report all beneficial owners means 
that certain compliance burdens may rise with the increasing structural 
complexity of a given entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1)(ii)(D), (2)(ii)(D).
    \165\ 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1)(ii)(C).
    \166\ 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Ownership Interests
    Proposed Rule. The CTA defines a beneficial owner to include ``an 
individual who . . . owns or controls not less than 25 percent of the 
ownership interests of the entity.'' \167\ The proposed rule 
incorporated that definition and further specified its meaning in 31 
CFR 1010.380(d)(3). Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(i) provided 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 would be included if they enable 
the holder to exercise the same rights as one of the specified types of 
equity or other interests, including if they enable the holder to 
convert the instrument into one of the specified types of equity or 
other interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii) also identified ways in which an 
individual may ``own or control'' such ownership interests. It restated 
statutory language that an individual may own or control an ownership 
interest directly or indirectly. It also gave a non-exhaustive list of 
examples to further specify how an individual can own or control 
ownership interests through a variety of means. In particular, proposed 
31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii)(C) specified how an individual may directly 
or indirectly own or control an ownership interest that is held in a 
trust or similar arrangement.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(iii) concluded the ownership 
interest section with guidance on determining whether an individual 
owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting 
company.
    Comments Received. Some commenters supported the proposed 
definition of ownership interests, noting that it is broader than mere 
equity ownership and provides a comprehensive list of forms of 
ownership interest. Other commenters expressed a preference for the 25 
percent equity interest threshold reflected in the 2016 CDD Rule to 
promote consistency with existing requirements. Commenters expressed 
concerns with the various considerations, such as debt and contingent 
interests, reflected in the proposed rule for the calculation of 
ownership interests and asserted that these considerations were 
unnecessarily complicated. Some of these commenters suggested that some 
(or all) types of convertible instruments should be excluded from the 
definition of ownership interests or that only immediately convertible 
interests should be included within the meaning of the term.
    Some commenters also noted technical concerns or suggested 
technical changes to the proposed definition. At least one commenter, 
for example, noted that the inclusion in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(3)(i)(A) of a ``certificate of interest or participation in 
any profit sharing agreement'' in the calculation of ownership 
interests could sweep in a company's bonus, profit-sharing, or 401(k) 
plan contributions in ways that could be complex to calculate over time 
and are not typically thought of as ownership interests. Other 
commenters suggested including statutory language specifying that an 
individual can own or control an ownership interest ``through any 
contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise,'' 
adding a catch-all provision to capture unanticipated ownership 
structures, addressing a number of specific trust scenarios, and 
clarifying the meaning of ``indirect'' interests and attribution rules 
for spouses, relatives, and others.
    A number of other comments took issue with aspects of the 
mechanisms that the proposed rule set forth for calculating percentage 
of ownership interest. These comments are summarized in connection with 
the specific provisions of the final rule that address the issues they 
raise.
    Final Rule. The final 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2) adopts in large part 
the proposed provisions regarding ownership interests, with certain 
clarifications. Among the clarifying changes to the proposed rule, the 
final rule includes subject headings for each of the subparagraphs of 
31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2) to clarify the scope of each subparagraph.
    First, 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(i), now entitled ``Definition of 
Ownership Interest,'' has been revised to focus solely on types of 
arrangements that convey ownership interests (e.g., equity, convertible 
instruments, stocks, etc.), rather than by reference to legal entities 
in which ownership interests are held. This reflects the wide variety 
of potential reporting company structures and the potential for evasion 
inherent in specifying detailed rules for each structure. FinCEN has 
also amended the final clause of 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(i)(A) to make 
clearer, as suggested by some commenters, that the listed forms of 
ownership (like equity or stocks) are independent of voting power or 
voting rights (which may be relevant to the related but conceptually 
distinct concept of substantial control). While often associated with 
ownership, these rights are not necessary to ownership and are better 
addressed through the substantial control prong of the definition of 
beneficial owner.
    FinCEN has also deleted the reference to proprietorship interests 
in the proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(i)(C), as the reference is 
superfluous and commenters found the term to be unclear. The final rule 
also deletes the clause ``certificate of interest or participation in 
any profit sharing agreement'' in 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(i)(A). Although 
this term has been part of securities law since the Securities Act of 
1933, applying it to particular facts can be complex and could make the 
task of identifying ownership interests significantly more difficult 
without producing a corresponding increase in useful information about 
beneficial ownership.\168\ FinCEN believes that the clause ``capital 
and profit interest'' adequately covers the concepts of ownership 
interests reflected in such profit-sharing agreements, and a specific 
reference to certificates of interest will not add sufficient clarity 
to outweigh the complexity of applying the term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See, e.g., Tchrepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 338 (1967) 
(finding investment could constitute certificates of interest and 
noting that ``the reach of the [Securities] Act [of 1933] does not 
stop with the obvious and commonplace'') (internal quotation marks 
omitted); Foxfield Villa Assocs. v. Robben, 967 F.3d 1082, 1090-1100 
(10th Cir. 2020) (complex litigation requiring three part test, with 
one part requiring six control-related factors, to determine whether 
certain LLC interests met the definition); Simon v. Fribourg, 650 F. 
Supp. 319, 321 (D. Minn. 1986) (``[T]here is little authority to 
suggest that a `certificate of interest or participation in a 
profit-sharing agreement' is a term so commonly understood and an 
agreement so easy to identify that it should be `provable by its 
name and characteristics.'' (internal citations omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also asked FinCEN to exclude convertible instruments, 
particularly those that are not immediately convertible, or whose 
conversion is subject to a range of conditions. FinCEN is declining to 
make this change. Convertible instruments are widely used and, 
particularly when the holder may convert the interest at will,

[[Page 59531]]

they are tantamount to equity ownership. Even if the instrument is not 
immediately convertible, the potential conversion of the instrument at 
a later time provides significant opportunities for exerting influence 
and maintaining an economic interest tantamount to ownership. Excluding 
these instruments would create significant room for potential evasion 
of reporting requirements.
    Commenters raised further concerns about certain types of 
convertible interests where the amount of the equity that the holder 
will receive is difficult to calculate or depends on conditions at the 
precise time when the interest is converted. One commenter gave the 
example of limited partnership or limited liability company structures 
often referred to as a ``waterfall,'' where a variety of different 
classes of interests have varying entitlements to the capital and 
profit of the enterprise that may be difficult to calculate as a 
percentage of all ownership interests. Another commenter pointed to 
Simple Agreements for Future Equity (a ``SAFE''), in which an investor 
agrees to provide funding, typically to a start-up company, that will 
convert into equity according to a formula based upon conditions when a 
predetermined event occurs, such as an initial public offering. It may 
be difficult to calculate how much equity will be received when the 
relevant condition occurs, and if the condition does not occur, the 
investor may receive no equity at all. Although FinCEN recognizes that 
such structures may complicate the calculation of the percentage of 
ownership interests, investors and companies who establish such 
structures do so in the expectation that they will receive a certain 
level of capital and profit interests. Moreover, to aid this reporting, 
FinCEN is clarifying the calculation of ownership interests, and the 
timing of such calculations, and explains that clarification in 
connection with the discussion of the ``Calculation of the Total 
Ownership Interests of the Reporting Company'' in Section III.C.ii. 
below.
    Lastly, the final rule modifies 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(i)(D) to 
address concerns raised by commenters that a reporting company may be 
unaware of situations where a third party has created an option or 
derivative related to the stock or other ownership interests in the 
reporting company (sometimes for a very limited time period). Although 
most reporting companies are not likely to be affected, FinCEN 
recognizes that market makers can create options and derivatives 
without involvement by reporting companies and owners, and in such 
cases, reporting companies will not have knowledge of the options or 
derivatives, or any mechanism to track such options and derivatives. In 
such cases, it would impose an unwarranted burden on reporting 
companies that are not otherwise aware of such options and derivatives 
to identify all of them. The final rule makes clear, however, that 
reporting companies will be required to take into account such options 
and derivatives where they are aware that they exist.
    The final rule also adds a new 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(i)(E) to 
include a catch-all provision to the definition of ownership interest 
to include ``[a]ny other instrument, contract, arrangement, 
understanding, relationship, or other mechanism used to establish 
ownership.'' As commenters noted, such a provision is consistent with 
the statutory language in 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A) and is designed to 
ensure that any individual or entity that establishes an ownership 
interest in a reporting company through a contractual or other 
relationship not described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(2)(i) is subject to the beneficial owner reporting 
requirements.
    Second, the final rule amends several paragraphs in 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(2)(ii), now entitled ``Ownership or Control of Ownership 
Interest,'' to address means through which a beneficial owner can ``own 
or control'' an ownership interest. First, the final rule replaces the 
clause ``variety of means'' with the more specific clause ``contract, 
arrangement, understanding, or other relationship,'' as used in the 
CTA, to better reflect the full range of channels through which an 
individual or entity may be able to directly or indirectly have 
ownership of a reporting company. Second, the final rule replaces the 
clause in paragraph (ii)(B) that read ``through control of such 
ownership interest owned by another individual'' with the more 
straightforward clause, ``through another individual acting as a 
nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent on behalf of such 
individual,'' to describe the specific types of relationships through 
which ownership of ownership interests can occur. Third, the final rule 
identifies in a new paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D) ownership or control of 
intermediary entities that own or control a reporting company as a 
specific means through which an individual may directly or indirectly 
own or control an ownership interest of a reporting company. Paragraph 
(D) was inadvertently listed in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(3)(ii)(C)(3)(i) as a means through which a grantor or 
settlor has the right to revoke the trust. The final rule also deletes 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii)(C)(3)(ii), which was also 
inadvertently listed in the trust paragraph; a similar clause is now 
included in the introductory paragraph of the final paragraph (d)(2) 
that identifies the variety of means or arrangements through which an 
individual may own or control ownership interests in a reporting 
company. In addition, FinCEN considered whether further clarity is 
needed with respect to constructive ownership, or attribution--for 
example, by spouses, children, or other relatives, by reference to 
other statutory or regulatory authorities such as the Internal Revenue 
Code or Office of Government Ethics rules--but determined that the 
terms ``ownership interest'' and ``substantial control'' are 
sufficiently comprehensive and other references were likely to be over-
inclusive and create significant burdens on reporting companies.
    The final rule does not change the provision in the proposed rule 
that identified specific individuals in trust and similar arrangements 
whom a reporting company could treat as owners of 25 percent of the 
ownership interests of the reporting company by virtue of their 
relationship to the trust that holds those ownership interests. FinCEN 
acknowledges the comments that objected to the proposed language on 
several grounds, particularly: that it is unclear whether the list of 
individuals who may own or control an ownership interest held in trust 
is illustrative or exhaustive; that the proposed language does not 
adequately address numerous types of trust arrangements; that it is 
unclear which parties in a trust arrangement should be reported as a 
beneficial owner when the regulatory language suggests that more than 
one individual could be considered to own or control the same ownership 
interests held in trust; and that the proposed language does not align 
with other sources of authority concerning trusts, such as tax 
law.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ Commenters have criticized the proposed regulations for 
not covering a wider range of trust scenarios. For instance, at 
least one commenter noted that the regulatory language does not 
specifically address trust arrangements with multiple beneficiaries. 
One commenter provided several examples of trust arrangements in 
which individuals might have beneficial interests in trust assets 
but might not be required to report under the regulations. Another 
commenter asked if the language covered such persons as trust 
protectors and advisors, and requested clarification on how to apply 
the regulation to a trust in which decisions concerning 
distributions were made by committee. Further, one commenter 
suggested that FinCEN entirely exclude the language regarding 
individuals with the authority to dispose of trust assets from the 
regulations, and one commenter supported the inclusion of this 
language in modified form.

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

[[Page 59532]]

    After considering these comments, however, FinCEN adopts the 
proposed rule without change. Assets, such as the ownership interests 
of a reporting company, can be held in trust. The final rule identifies 
the trustee as an individual who will be deemed to control trust assets 
for the purpose of determining which individuals own or control 25 
percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company. In 
addition to trustees, the final rule specifies that other individuals 
with authority to control or dispose of trust assets are considered to 
own or control the ownership interests in a reporting company that are 
held in trust. The final rule identifies circumstances in which 
ownership interests held in trust will be considered as owned or 
controlled by a beneficiary: if the beneficiary is the sole permissible 
recipient of income and principal from the trust, or if the beneficiary 
has the right to demand a distribution of, or withdraw substantially 
all, of the assets in the trust. In addition, trust assets will be 
considered as owned or controlled by a grantor or settlor who has the 
right to revoke the trust or withdraw its assets. One consequence of 
this--to confirm the reading that one comment suggested was possible 
and requested clarification on--is that, depending on the specifics of 
the trust arrangement, the ownership interests held in trust could be 
considered simultaneously as owned or controlled by multiple parties in 
a trust arrangement.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Such an outcome is not unique to the circumstance of 
trusts. For example, joint ownership of an undivided interest in 
ownership interests of a reporting company can result in the same 
assets being attributed to all of the joint owners. See 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(2)(ii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide clarity, FinCEN has sought to identify specific 
scenarios in which individuals can be considered to own or control 
ownership interests of a reporting company held in trust. FinCEN has 
also made clear that those are specific examples of the more general 
principle, stated in the introductory text in (d)(2)(ii), that an 
individual ``may directly or indirectly own or control an ownership 
interest of a reporting company through any contract, arrangement, 
understanding, relationship, or otherwise.'' As one commenter noted, 
however, trusts arrangements can vary significantly in form, so the 
examples in the final rule do not address all applications of the 
general principle. The final rule is different, less specific, and less 
prescriptive than section 318(a)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
(which some commenters have urged FinCEN to adopt and others have urged 
FinCEN to disclaim). FinCEN believes that the final regulatory language 
is more closely tailored to the purpose and language of the CTA than 
rules governing income tax liability.
    Third, 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(iii), now entitled ``Calculation of 
the Total Ownership Interests of the Reporting Company,'' has been 
revised in order to provide additional clarity and guidance. The NPRM 
required that the percentage of ownership interests owned or controlled 
by an individual be calculated by taking all of the individual's 
ownership interests, aggregated across all types of ownership interests 
that the individual may hold, and dividing them by the total undiluted 
ownership interests of the reporting company, also aggregated across 
all types of interests.
    Commenters raised concerns about how to conduct this calculation. 
One commenter thought the term undiluted ownership interests was 
unclear and difficult to apply. Two commenters raised concerns about 
how to aggregate different types of ownership interests, particularly 
in the context of LLCs and start-up companies. This concern aligned 
with other commenters' concern about contingent interests that may 
depend upon future events to determine their value. Numerous commenters 
suggested alternatives, such as the formulation used in the 2016 CDD 
Rule, SEC rules, and clarifying changes to the NPRM definition.
    The final rule addresses these concerns by providing specific 
guidance for certain types of entities and convertible interests. In 
all circumstances, the final rule clarifies that the individual's total 
ownership interests are compared to the outstanding ownership interests 
of the reporting company, as specified in the proposed rule. But more 
specifically for reporting companies that issue capital and profit 
interests, including entities taxed as partnerships, the final rule 
clarifies that the individual's total capital and profit interests are 
compared to the total outstanding capital and profit interests of the 
reporting company. For corporations, entities taxed as corporations, 
and other entities that issue shares, the final rule clarifies that a 
``vote or value'' approach should be used. Under this approach, the 
individual's percentage of ownership interests is the greater of: (1) 
the total combined voting power of all classes of ownership interests 
of the individual as a percentage of total outstanding voting power of 
all classes of ownership interests entitled to vote, or (2) the total 
combined value of the ownership interests of the individual as a 
percentage of the total outstanding value of all classes of ownership 
interests. These rules are similar to rules used by entities for 
federal tax purposes. If neither the calculation for entities that 
issue capital and profit interests nor the calculation for entities 
that issue shares can be performed with reasonable certainty, the final 
rule contains a catch-all provision: the individual is deemed to hold 
25 percent or more of the total ownership interests in the reporting 
company if the individual owns or controls 25 percent or more of any 
class or type of ownership interests. All of these calculations are 
performed on the ownership interests as they stand at the time of the 
calculation. Options and similar interests are treated as though 
exercised when the calculation is conducted.
    The final rule balances commenters' concerns about uncertainty in 
applying the rule against the need for flexibility to accommodate a 
wide range of ownership structures while conducting the calculation 
required by the CTA's 25% threshold. With the wide diversity of 
ownership structures that reporting companies may have, FinCEN 
recognizes that it may be difficult to aggregate all of these interests 
in all circumstances. But this difficulty is inherent in the CTA's 
definition of a beneficial owner as an individual who owns or controls 
at least 25 percent of ``the ownership interests of the entity,'' a 
category that encompasses more than one type or class of interest. The 
final rule aims to minimize the burden on reporting companies by 
providing guidance for the most common manifestations of the most 
common structures--LLCs, partnerships, corporations, and similar 
entities--and providing a simplified catch-all for other structures or 
situations where the other calculations cannot easily be performed. 
While the catch-all may be potentially over- or under-inclusive 
depending upon how an entity structures its classes of ownership 
interests, it provides the most administrable rule for less common 
ownership structures. FinCEN believes that the final rule strikes the 
appropriate balance between clarity and flexibility for the wide range 
of potential ownership structures, and the final rule may be 
supplemented with additional FAQs and guidance to the extent greater 
clarity is needed on particular facts and circumstances.
    Similarly, the final rule provides greater clarity for holders of 
contingent interests. Options and similar interests are treated as 
though exercised and

[[Page 59533]]

added to the calculation of an individual's total ownership interests, 
and if this calculation cannot be conducted with reasonable certainty, 
the options and similar interests are treated as exercised for purposes 
of the catch-all rule. It should be noted that the present value of a 
contingent interest is irrelevant to the calculation of percentage of 
ownership interests. For example, if the exercise of an option or 
similar interest at the present time would result in an individual 
holding 26 percent of the profit interests in an entity, the individual 
would be deemed to own or control 25 percent or more of the ownership 
interests in the reporting company even if the value of those profit 
interests is indeterminate or negligible at the present time. While 
commenters have raised concerns about the burden involved in updating 
such calculations, such updates are necessary to ensure the accuracy of 
the information reported to FinCEN. Moreover, these challenges should 
be relatively infrequent because only a change that results in the 
individual moving above or below 25 percent of total ownership 
interests will change the reporting obligation. The particular 
percentage of any individual's ownership interest need not be reported.
    While other means of assessing ownership interests suggested by 
commenters such as the 2016 CDD Rule or SEC rules may be more familiar 
to some, FinCEN does not believe that any of these definitions both 
meet the requirement of the CTA for a calculation of total ownership 
interests for each reporting company and adequately balance the need 
for guidance and flexibility in conducting that calculation. The final 
rule does not include changes proposed by commenters to conform the 
definition of ownership interests to the 2016 CDD Rule. In the 2016 CDD 
Rule, only ``equity interests'' are relevant, joint ownership is not 
explicitly addressed, and assets in trust are deemed to be owned by 
their trustees.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See 31 CFR 1010.230(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters urged FinCEN to adopt the 2016 CDD Rule approach to 
trusts. As the agency explained in the NPRM, the CTA departs from the 
2016 CDD Rule in meaningful ways. For example, the CTA's definition of 
a beneficial owner, unlike the 2016 CDD Rule, does not create a 
numerical limit on the beneficial owners that a reporting company must 
report.\172\ Rather, the CTA mandates that FinCEN collect information 
on ``each beneficial owner'' of a reporting company. The CTA also has 
the objective of establishing a comprehensive BOI database of the 
beneficial owners of reporting companies.\173\ By contrast, the 2016 
CDD Rule requires financial institutions to identify for their legal 
entity accountholders one control person (functionally a representative 
of all control persons, most of whom are therefore not named) and no 
more than four equity owners. Additionally, Congress's decision to 
require FinCEN to revise the 2016 CDD Rule to bring it into conformance 
with the CTA suggests Congress intentionally departed from the 2016 CDD 
Rule's requirements.\174\ Commenters have not offered persuasive 
reasons to believe this is not the case. FinCEN therefore has decided 
not to follow the 2016 CDD Rule approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A).
    \173\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
    \174\ See CTA, Section 6403(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Exceptions to Definition of Beneficial Owner
    31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B) includes five exceptions to the definition 
of beneficial owner, for: a minor child, provided that a parent or 
guardian's information is reported; an individual acting as a nominee, 
intermediary, custodian, or agent on behalf of another individual; an 
individual acting solely as an employee of a reporting company in 
specified circumstances; an individual whose only interest in a 
reporting company is a future interest through a right of inheritance; 
and a creditor of a reporting company. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4) 
incorporated the statutory exceptions with minor clarifications and 
sought comments on whether the proposed rules implementing these 
statutory exceptions are sufficiently clear, and whether any of these 
rules require further clarification.
    A number of commenters sought clarification or proposed changes to 
each of the exceptions. These comments are discussed in connection with 
each exception in this section. In addition, commenters proposed the 
following additional exclusions to the ``beneficial owner'' definition: 
trust beneficiaries, particularly those that might be unaware of their 
beneficiary status; trustees for employee stock ownership plans; and 
agents declared to the IRS. However, the CTA specifies the specific 
exceptions to the definition of ``beneficial owner'' and does not 
provide for the addition of others. FinCEN accordingly does not extend 
the list. Nevertheless, some of the specific concerns raised by the 
commenters are addressed in the final rule and this discussion, and 
FinCEN will consider the need for guidance or FAQs to evaluate 
particular circumstances as they arise.
a. Minor Children
    Proposed Rule. In the case of minor children, consistent with the 
CTA,\175\ proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(i) stated that the term 
``beneficial owner'' does not include a minor child, provided that the 
reporting company reports the required information of the minor child's 
parent or legal guardian. It also clarified that ``minor child'' is 
defined under the law of the state or Indian tribe in which a domestic 
reporting company is created or in which a foreign reporting company is 
first registered. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(ii) included an 
additional clarification that a reporting company would need to 
indicate when the information provided relates to a parent or legal 
guardian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. One commenter questioned whether information 
about a parent or guardian is necessary and questioned the value of 
such information to law enforcement. The commenter also noted that 
other legal authorities, including fiduciary laws, as well as the 
underlying legal instrument, would govern whether and to what extent a 
parent or guardian can control funds that may belong to a minor child 
as a beneficial owner.
    Final Rule. FinCEN is adopting the requirement as proposed. The CTA 
specifically exempts a minor child from the definition of ``beneficial 
owner'' provided that the information of the minor child's parent or 
guardian is reported.\176\ In view of this statutory direction, FinCEN 
does not eliminate the requirement that information of the parent or 
guardian of the minor child must be reported in the event a minor 
child's information is not reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ See id. (``The term `beneficial owner' . . . does not 
include . . . a minor child, as defined in the State in which the 
entity is formed, if the information of the parent or guardian of 
the minor child is reported in accordance with this section . . . 
.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FinCEN emphasizes that a reporting company must submit 
an updated report when a minor child reaches the age of majority 
(again, 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), given that such an event would constitute a 
change with respect to information submitted to FinCEN requiring an 
updated report. For the sake of clarity, FinCEN has spelled out this 
requirement by adding 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2)(iv), which notes that the

[[Page 59534]]

date on which the minor child attains the age of majority is the 
triggering date for purposes of the requirements for filing an updated 
report under 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2).
b. Nominees, Intermediaries, Custodians, and Agents
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(ii) reflected the 
exception provided in the CTA for an individual acting as a nominee, 
intermediary, custodian, or agent on behalf of another individual.\177\ 
Under this exception, reporting companies must report real parties in 
interest who exercise control indirectly, but not those who merely act 
on another individual's behalf in one of the specified capacities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Multiple commenters expressed support for the 
proposed rule, and commenters generally did not oppose or seek 
clarification of this provision. However, under the rubric of proposed 
31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1) (concerning what it means to exercise 
``substantial control'' such that an individual qualifies as a 
beneficial owner), some commenters inquired about the treatment of 
certain retained professionals with an agency relationship, such as tax 
and legal professionals who have been designated as an agent under IRS 
Form 2848 (Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative), whom 
these commenters viewed as exercising substantial influence in 
practical terms when they perform services within the scope of their 
duties.
    Final Rule. FinCEN is adopting 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(ii) as 
proposed but renumbered as 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii). FinCEN emphasizes 
the obligation of a reporting company to report identifying information 
of the individual on whose behalf a nominee, intermediary, custodian, 
or agent is acting. However, as explained in Section III.C.i regarding 
the treatment of tax professionals and other similarly situated 
professionals, such a professional would not need to be reported if the 
individual is acting as a nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent of 
an individual who is reported. Moreover, as explained in Section 
III.C.i regarding the application of final 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1)(i)(C), 
FinCEN does not envision that the performance of ordinary, arms-length 
advisory or other contractual services to a reporting company would 
provide an individual with the power to direct or determine, or have 
substantial influence over, important decisions of a reporting company.
c. Employees
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(iii) implemented the 
statutory exemption from the definition of ``beneficial owner'' for 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 that person's employment status.\178\ The 
proposed rule adopted the CTA's language and supplemented it in two 
respects: (1) the proposed rule added the word ``substantial'' to 
modify ``control,'' to clarify that the control referenced in the 
exception is the same type of ``substantial control'' over a reporting 
company used in the definition of ``beneficial owner'' and defined in 
the regulations; and (2) the proposed rule clarified that a person 
acting as a senior officer of a reporting company would not qualify for 
the exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Some commenters expressed concern that the 
employee exception could erase any differences between the treatment of 
senior officers in the proposed definition of ``substantial control'' 
and the treatment of officers under the 2016 CDD Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(1) would classify a ``senior officer'' (defined in proposed 
31 CFR 1010.380(f)(8) as an individual holding various senior 
positions, exercising such authority, or performing a similar function) 
as having substantial control over an entity. Similarly, the 2016 CDD 
Rule requires customers to identify one individual that directs the 
business of the entity, such as a chief executive officer, chief 
financial officer, or chief operating officer.\179\ The commenters 
expressed the view that such officers would also constitute employees 
and could be covered by the employee exception, which would render the 
beneficial ownership registry under-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ 31 CFR 1010.230(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(4)(iii) with minor clarifications to minimize the potential 
confusion noted by commenters. The CTA makes clear that individuals who 
benefit from this exception must be acting ``solely as an employee'' 
and derive control or economic benefits ``solely from the[ir] 
employment status.'' \180\ Accordingly, the final rule specifically 
provides that individuals can be treated as falling within the employee 
exception where they are ``acting solely as an employee'' and where 
their ``control over or economic benefits from'' a reporting company 
are derived ``solely'' from their employment status--but only if they 
are not senior officers of a company exercising substantial control 
under 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1)(i)(A). Senior officers, as defined in 31 
CFR 1010.380(f)(8), perform functions that inherently involve 
substantial control and go beyond mere employee status. As the CTA 
makes clear, the employee exception is intended to reach employees who 
might otherwise meet the criteria for a ``beneficial owner'' based 
solely on their limited, ordinary employment activities. But if senior 
officers were considered to be employees in this sense, it would 
swallow the substantial control provision for senior officers who 
exercise a great deal of control over a reporting company, and thus 
undermine FinCEN's ability to determine who in fact exercises 
substantial control over an entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(iii) (emphases added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Inheritance
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(iv) clarified that 
the inheritor exception in the CTA 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. The CTA's 
definition of ``beneficial owner'' excludes ``an individual whose only 
interest'' in the entity ``is through a right of inheritance.'' \181\ 
In proposing this clarification to the inheritor exception, FinCEN 
sought to clarify that 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 has acquired an ownership interest through another 
means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Commenters asked that FinCEN provide more 
clarity with respect to the application of the inheritor exception. One 
commenter suggested providing a specific definition of a ``right of 
inheritance,'' which could, for example, describe situations in which 
the inheritor exception would apply in the probate process. Another 
commenter suggested outlining the mechanisms that would constitute 
``inheritance'' under this exception.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(4)(iv) without change, other than renumbering as 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(3)(iv). As stated

[[Page 59535]]

in the proposed rule, FinCEN emphasizes that once an individual has 
acquired an ownership interest in an entity through inheritance, that 
individual owns that ownership interest and is potentially subject to 
the beneficial-owner reporting requirements. Individuals who may in the 
future come to own ownership interests in an entity through a right of 
inheritance do not have ownership interests until the inheritance 
occurs. Such a future or contingent interest may exist through wills or 
other probate mechanisms that solely provide a future interest in an 
entity. 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.
    The precise moment at which an individual acquires an ownership 
interest in an entity through inheritance may be subject to a variety 
of existing legal authorities, such as the terms of a will, the terms 
of a trust, applicable state laws, and other valid instruments and 
rules. FinCEN intends the application of the inheritor exception, and 
the meaning of a ``right of inheritance'' in this paragraph (d)(3)(iv), 
to conform to the governing legal authorities. Should those authorities 
not provide sufficient direction for purposes of this inheritor 
exception, FinCEN is prepared to consider supplemental guidance or 
FAQs.
e. Creditors
    Proposed Rule. The CTA's definition of beneficial owner excludes a 
creditor of a corporation, limited liability company, or other similar 
entity, unless the creditor meets the overall definition of beneficial 
owner by exercising substantial control over the entity or owning or 
controlling 25 percent or more of the entity's ownership 
interests.\182\ FinCEN believes that the ``unless'' clause in the CTA 
language intends to create a distinction between two groups: (1) 
creditors exempted from reporting obligations because they are 
individuals who qualify as beneficial owners solely because of their 
status as creditors; and (2) individuals who are creditors in the sense 
that they hold a debt but remain obligated to report because they have 
additional rights or interests that render them a beneficial owner. 
Accordingly, as it explained in the NPRM, FinCEN proposed regulatory 
language intended to identify individuals who are beneficial owners 
solely because they are creditors. Specifically, proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(4)(v) stated that an excepted 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 
interest on such debt. FinCEN also explained 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 took 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 preclude that individual from claiming the creditor 
exception under the proposed rule's approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(v) (definition does not include 
``a creditor of a corporation, limited liability company, or other 
similar entity, unless the creditor meets the requirements of 
subparagraph (A)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. No commenter objected to FinCEN's reading of the 
CTA under which the creditor exception is only intended to apply to 
individuals who would otherwise be beneficial owners solely because of 
their status as a creditor. While some commenters generally supported 
the proposed interpretation of the creditor exception, certain 
commenters requested clarification as to how it would apply in specific 
circumstances. In particular, commenters asked FinCEN to clarify 
whether the exemption would cover loans to a reporting company that 
included provisions requiring the pledging of assets as collateral, the 
ability to require the voting of shares in certain circumstances, or 
negative covenants. Other commenters asserted that this exception as 
proposed would apply very rarely because it did not match commercial 
realities, and therefore would result in over-reporting of beneficial 
owners. According to these commenters, many commercial loan agreements 
and other forms of financing contain negative covenants and additional 
creditor protections that go beyond the payment of a predetermined sum 
of money, but these protections are not commonly thought of as 
ownership interests. These commentators worried that, if loans 
containing such protections are not included within the creditor 
exception, many creditors who do not regard themselves as beneficial 
owners might be viewed as having substantial control over their 
reporting-company debtors. Consequently, those reporting companies 
might be required to report as beneficial owners those creditors (or 
the beneficial owners of those creditors, if the creditors are 
entities).
    Final Rule. The final rule revises proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(4)(v) to clarify that an individual would qualify for the 
creditor exception based on the individual's entitlement to payment of 
a reporting company's indebtedness, even if there are loan covenants or 
other similar obligations associated with that indebtedness that are 
intended to secure repayment or enhance the likelihood of repayment. 
The rule language continues to reflect FinCEN's view that the 
overarching intent of the CTA was to exclude from the definition of 
beneficial owner an individual whose sole interest in a reporting 
company is as a creditor. The revisions are intended to address the 
point made by commenters that the interests of a creditor routinely 
include rights or obligations--such as the right to require the debtor 
to adhere to specific covenants with respect to the management of the 
debtor's business or the obligation to maintain the collateral securing 
a loan--that go significantly beyond the bare right to receive a sum of 
money, but are not commonly considered to amount to ownership or 
control of a company.
    FinCEN considered a number of options for creating regulatory 
language that would make this point administrable, and ultimately 
concluded that it would be fruitless to attempt to enumerate, or even 
describe, the universe of creditor rights that do not amount to 
ownership or control. Conditioning the creditor exception on whether 
debt documentation is consistent with a laundry list of acceptable 
provisions would require a reporting company to minutely examine every 
debt agreement or forego any attempt to apply the creditor exception. 
Instead, FinCEN has chosen to describe the key characteristic of an 
acceptable provision: that it is intended to secure the right to 
receive payment or enhance the likelihood of repayment. This 
description encompasses the range of terms that may be reasonable for 
creditors to seek in different commercial contexts, while carving out 
attempts to evade reporting by characterizing ownership interests or 
unjustified control rights in a debt instrument. FinCEN understands 
that terms in credit agreements have not been a significant vehicle for 
concealing beneficial ownership interests in the past. Nevertheless, 
whether a term crosses the line into substantial control or ownership, 
and is therefore inconsistent with this exception, will depend upon the 
facts and circumstances of a

[[Page 59536]]

particular situation. FinCEN will consider additional guidance or FAQs, 
as appropriate, if there is a need to clarify how the final rule 
applies to specific factual circumstances.
    FinCEN also considered options for regulatory language that would 
enumerate or describe the types of creditor rights that do amount to 
assertions of ownership or substantial control in the guise of a debt 
agreement. In this regard, FinCEN concluded that it would be equally 
challenging to try to identify specific rights that would be 
categorically inconsistent with the creditor exception from the 
definition of beneficial owner, and thus has not done so.

D. Definition of Company Applicant

    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(e) defined the term company 
applicant, in the case of a domestic reporting company, as an 
individual who files the document that forms the entity. In the case of 
a foreign reporting company, it defined company applicant as an 
individual who files the document that first registers the entity to do 
business in the United States. The proposed rule further specified that 
a company applicant includes anyone who directs or controls the filing 
of the document by another.
    The proposed rule took a broad approach to company applicants in 
order to ensure that the reporting company provides information on 
individuals that are responsible for the filing to form a reporting 
company. The proposed rule contemplated that, in many cases, the 
company applicant might 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. FinCEN believed that this 
additional information about persons directing or controlling the 
formation or registration of the reporting company would be highly 
useful to law enforcement, which might be able to draw connections 
between and among seemingly unrelated reporting companies, beneficial 
owners, and company applicants based on this additional information. 
FinCEN sought comments on this approach.
    Comments Received. Some commenters expressed support for the 
proposed definition of company applicant and agreed that it would be 
useful to law enforcement. However, most commenters generally expressed 
confusion about the scope and intent of the company applicant 
definition. Many commenters stated that the definition was overly 
broad, vague, hard to administer, and burdensome. Some commenters noted 
that the ``directs or controls'' prong could be read to include a wide 
range of employees in a company formation business or a law firm, and 
others asked for clarification regarding how many individuals should be 
reported. Some commenters asked for clarity on whether paralegals, 
secretaries, legal assistants, lawyers, or law firms were expected to 
be reported. Other commenters interpreted those that ``direct or 
control'' the filing with a secretary of state or other similar offices 
to potentially include State government employees who processed the 
filings.
    Some commenters noted that the definition does not account for 
modern incorporation practices, and one commenter pointed out that 
automated incorporation services do not require companies to interact 
with individuals for corporate filings or registrations. Commercial 
corporate service providers also requested clarification, and many 
suggested that employees of such entities not be reported, but rather 
the entity or its record liaison. Many commenters suggested 
alternatives. Multiple commenters proposed exemptions to the 
definition, such as state employees, lawyers, and those who perform 
ministerial functions. A few commenters suggested that the ``directs or 
controls'' prong be removed, noting practical challenges, including 
filers being unaware of whether multiple persons ``directed'' such a 
filing.
    Final Rule. The final rule modifies 31 CFR 1010.380(e) and adds 
paragraph (e)(3) to further clarify the definition of company applicant 
and reduce unnecessary burdens. The final rule specifies that the term 
company applicant means the individual who directly files the document 
to create or register the reporting company and the individual who is 
primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more 
than one individual is involved in the filing. This definition is 
designed to identify the individual who is responsible for the creation 
of a reporting company through the filing of formation documents, and 
the individual that directly submits the formation documents, if that 
function is performed by a different person, but it reduces potential 
burdens by limiting the definition of company applicant to only one or 
two individuals.
    In many cases, company applicants may be employed by a business 
formation service or law firm. For example, there may be an attorney 
primarily responsible for overseeing the preparation and filing of 
incorporation documents and a paralegal who directly files them with a 
state office to create the reporting company. In this example, this 
reporting company would report two company applicants--the attorney and 
the paralegal--but additional individuals who may be indirectly 
involved in the filing would not need to be reported.
    In other cases, a person who controls a reporting company may 
create the reporting company and file its formation documents without 
the assistance of a business formation service, law firm, or similar 
service. For example, an individual may prepare and self-file documents 
to create the individual's own reporting company. In this case, this 
reporting company would report one company applicant--the individual--
who would also be reported as a beneficial owner. In another example, 
without the assistance of a business formation service, an individual 
may prepare formation documents for the individual's own reporting 
company, and a family member, agent, or other individual may directly 
file the documents with the state office. In this example, this 
reporting company would report two company applicants--the individual 
who prepares the documents and the individual who directly files them. 
State filing office employees who process formation documents in the 
ordinary course of their state employment are not the filers of the 
documents they process, and therefore do not need to be reported. Where 
business formation services provide software, online tools, or 
generally applicable written guidance, the employees of such services 
are not company applicants. However, employees of such services may be 
company applicants if they are personally involved in the filing of a 
document to form a particular company.

E. Reporting Company

    Consistent with the CTA, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1) defined two 
terms, ``domestic reporting company'' and ``foreign reporting 
company,'' which are the companies subject to the CTA's reporting 
requirements.\183\ Commenters had a broad range of questions about 
whether particular types of entities fall within the scope of these 
definitions. In view of the number of fact-specific questions and the 
varying state practices on corporate formation and registration, FinCEN 
recognizes that further guidance and FAQs may be needed to provide 
guidance in specific factual circumstances. Proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2) specified several exemptions from the definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(A)(i)-(ii).

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

[[Page 59537]]

i. Domestic Reporting Company
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)(i) defined a domestic 
reporting company to include: a corporation; a limited liability 
company; 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.\184\ 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 proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. While comments were generally supportive of the 
definition reflected in the proposed rule, at least one commenter 
stated that the definition of reporting company should align with the 
legal entity customer definition in the 2016 CDD Rule. This commenter 
noted that if the definition does not conform with the 2016 CDD Rule's 
definition, depository institutions would not be able use and rely on 
the BOSS to fulfill their CDD Rule obligations. A number of comments 
noted that the proposed rule effectuated the broad scope of the CTA and 
defined ``other similar entity'' by reference to whether it was created 
under the laws of the state or Indian tribe, or registered to do 
business in the state or Tribal jurisdiction, by filing a document with 
a secretary of state or similar office.
    Commenters, however, sought a range of clarifications to the 
proposed definition of domestic reporting company. Commenters asked 
whether particular types of legal entities were included or excluded 
within the proposed definition. Some commenters asked for an 
enumeration of the types of legal entities included within the scope of 
``other similar entity.'' One commenter, for example, requested that 
the list of entities qualifying as a domestic reporting company include 
limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability 
limited partnerships, and statutory trusts. Four commenters also asked 
whether insurance company separate accounts, certain special purpose 
vehicles, series LLCs, single-member LLCs, or entities that voluntarily 
file with secretaries of state or similar offices would or would not be 
reporting companies. Multiple comments requested additional 
clarification about how to apply the proposed rule to different kinds 
of trusts, including business trusts, common law trusts, irrevocable 
trusts, and statutorily mandated trust entities. Numerous comments, 
including some comments from secretaries of state, supported expressly 
excluding sole proprietorships and general partnerships. These 
commenters opined that not doing so might cause confusion: in most 
jurisdictions, general partnerships and sole proprietorships do not 
generally have to file anything with a secretary of state or other 
similar office, but many do elect to file certain forms in certain 
cases, such as d/b/a certificates, with a state or local government 
office. Other commenters asked about various situations in which a 
filing might create a reporting company, e.g., through a voluntary 
filing, through conversions or reorganizations, or in the context of a 
delayed effective date. One commenter noted that the way to determine 
whether an entity is a reporting company is to focus on the act of 
filing to create the entity as the determinative factor. Another 
commenter agreed that this process-oriented definition of reporting 
company provides flexibility that accounts for the filing practice 
unique to each state.
    Commenters also requested clarification of the term ``similar 
office.'' One commenter suggested, for example, that ``similar office'' 
should be construed to include any state or local government authority, 
including a state, local, regional, or Tribal court, in order to bring 
certain trusts that voluntarily register with such authorities under 
certain states' laws into the definition of reporting company and 
subject them to the rule's reporting requirements.
    Lastly, some commenters expressed concern that reliance on state 
law requirements could provide opportunities for evasion and avoidance 
given differences between state law requirements. One commenter also 
suggested that the term ``created'' be interpreted to focus on the 
activities that the entity could perform, e.g., the ability to conduct 
business, in order the prevent states from being able to re-label the 
formation or registration activity for purposes of evasion.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)(i) 
without significant change. The final rule incorporates the CTA's 
definition of domestic reporting company, which broadly captures 
corporations, LLCs, and other similar entities created by a filing with 
a secretary of state or similar office. Notably, despite requests that 
FinCEN align the reporting company definition with the 2016 CDD Rule, 
the final rule does not make that change because the CTA's definition 
of reporting company is distinct from the definition in the 2016 CDD 
Rule.
    FinCEN considered whether to further define ``other similar 
entity'' as used in 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(A) or to list the types of 
entities that are either subject to the rule or not subject to the 
rule. The numerous comments in response to questions on this issue in 
the NPRM made clear that state law corporate formation practices and 
nomenclature vary among states and with respect to particular types of 
entities. Many secretaries of state, for example, provided some 
clarification regarding situations in which certain types of entities 
are required to file a formation document and other types of entities 
generally are permitted to submit certification or other documents, but 
the details of these situations varied. This variety makes it difficult 
to identify types of entities that are or are not categorically covered 
by the definition in every state or scenario.
    The CTA itself provides a reasonably clear principle to apply to 
the variety of specific scenarios, i.e., that a domestic reporting 
company is an entity created by the filing of a document with a 
secretary of state or other similar office. In general, FinCEN believes 
that sole proprietorships, certain types of trusts, and general 
partnerships in many, if not most, circumstances are not created 
through the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar 
office. In such cases, the sole proprietorship, trust, or general 
partnership would not be a reporting company under the final rule. 
Moreover, where such an entity registers for a business license or 
similar permit, FinCEN believes that such registration would not 
generally ``create'' the entity, and thus the entity would not be 
created by a filing with a secretary of state or similar office. 
However, the particular context and details of a state's registration 
and filing practices may be relevant to determining whether an entity 
is created by a filing, and based on the range of responses regarding 
state law corporate formation practices, there may be varying practices 
that make a categorical rule that includes or exclude specific types of 
entities impracticable. It is similarly difficult to craft a generally 
applicable rule for conversions or reorganizations of entities, given 
the range of possible scenarios for conversions or reorganizations 
under state law and the variety of outcomes in terms of an entity 
retaining certain attributes of its predecessor entity. In such cases, 
the touchstone is whether the successor entity is created by the

[[Page 59538]]

filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office. Given 
the potential range of relevant facts, FinCEN will consider issuing 
guidance as necessary to resolve questions on whether entities of 
particular types in particular circumstances are created by the filing 
of a document with the relevant authority.
    One commenter suggested that sole proprietorships that file a 
document with a state or Tribal agency to obtain a d/b/a or other trade 
name should be considered to be reporting companies and subject to the 
rule's reporting requirements. FinCEN does not address this issue in 
the final rule, but notes that the core consideration for the purposes 
of the CTA's statutory text and the final rule is whether an ``entity'' 
is ``created'' by the filing of the document with the relevant 
authority. In light of the potential for varying state law practices, 
FinCEN may consider guidance in the future to address considerations 
relevant to entities that register to use a d/b/a or other trade name.
    Some of the comments raise the issue of the difference between 
``mandatory'' and ``voluntary'' filings, asserting that FinCEN should 
make no distinction between the two. We emphasize again that the only 
relevant issue for the purposes of the CTA and the final rule is 
whether the filing ``creates'' the entity. Whether the ``filing'' is 
deemed mandatory or voluntary, whether such a filing is pursuant to a 
conversion or reorganization, whether it is made for tax, dissolution, 
or other purposes, or any other such consideration, is not necessarily 
dispositive. FinCEN is prepared to issue guidance if necessary to 
further clarify which situations may cause a newly formed entity to be 
subject to the reporting company definition.
    Some commenters identified states in which a department or agency 
other than the secretary of state handled business entity filings. 
These commenters asked for greater clarity regarding the term ``similar 
office.'' FinCEN notes that some states call the state agency that has 
primary responsibility for handling filings that create legal entities 
under state law something other than a ``secretary of state.'' \185\ 
FinCEN also notes a similar office may include a department or agency 
that has functions similar to a secretary of state to the extent they 
receive filings that create new entities. But a determination as to 
whether an office is ``similar'' depends on context. One commenter 
noted that in some states entities such as trusts file relevant 
documents with state courts for certain purposes and asked that FinCEN 
expressly include state courts within the meaning of the term ``similar 
office.'' As with types of entities, FinCEN declines to incorporate 
into the final rule either a one-size-fits-all definition or a list of 
qualifying offices that create entities by filing with the state 
office, given the varying state practices. FinCEN, however, will 
consider additional guidance as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ In the District of Columbia, for example, the office with 
that function is the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs; 
in Virginia, it is the State Corporation Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, FinCEN considered whether reliance on state law corporate 
formation practices for the purposes of the definition of a reporting 
company would create opportunities for avoidance or evasion of the 
reporting requirements. At least one commenter stated that the word 
``created'' should be interpreted by reference to a type of activity, 
e.g., the ability to conduct business, in order to avoid the potential 
for evasion based on differing state law corporate formation practices. 
FinCEN does not adopt this suggestion because the standard specified by 
the CTA is whether an entity is created by a filing, and that standard 
should not be confused with other types of filings for other purposes 
or to satisfy other state requirements. While potential differences in 
state law practices could provide opportunities for forum shopping, 
FinCEN does not make any changes in response to this comment. The CTA 
is clear that state corporate formation law and practices dictate 
whether an entity is a reporting company.
ii. Foreign Reporting Company
    Proposed Rule. 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. As 
explained in the proposed rule, FinCEN would 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 rule otherwise tracked 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.
    Comments Received. As with the definition of domestic reporting 
company, comments were generally supportive of the definition reflected 
in the proposed rule but sought additional specificity about scope of 
the definition. Some commenters proposed clarifications to the foreign 
reporting company definition and noted that entities may not be 
required to file with a secretary of state or similar office depending 
on their activities within the state. For example, one secretary of 
state explained that state law regarding corporations and LLCs 
specifies that certain activities of a foreign entity in that state do 
not constitute transacting business there, and thus do not trigger a 
filing requirement with the state. Multiple commenters expressed the 
concern that the requirement that a foreign entity that registers to do 
business in a state or Tribal jurisdiction by the ``filing of a 
document'' with the relevant state or Tribal authority will require 
small businesses to employ tax or legal professionals to advise them on 
how to comply with the proposed regulation. Additionally, some state 
authorities highlighted potential confusion surrounding the term 
``foreign,'' given the common state practice of referring to all 
entities organized outside of the state--including those organized in 
other states within the United States--as ``foreign'' entities; these 
state authorities suggested the reporting rule use the term 
``international foreign.'' Some commenters noted that the proposed 
definition is underinclusive and will not achieve an appropriate level 
of transparency. Lastly, some commenters asked FinCEN to require State 
and Tribal agencies to inform FinCEN of laws and regulations that allow 
a non-U.S. entity to conduct activities within the United States in 
order to enhance transparency.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(1)(ii) without change. As with the definition of domestic 
reporting company, the final rule incorporates the CTA's definition of 
foreign reporting company, which broadly captures corporations, limited 
liability companies, and other entities formed in a foreign country 
when they are registered to do business in the United States by the 
filling of a document with the secretary of state or similar office.
    The final rule does not make any changes in response to requests 
from commenters to clarify the meaning of ``foreign'' based on state 
law convention. By referring to an entity ``formed under the law of a 
foreign country,'' 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)(ii)(B) makes clear that the 
country of origin is relevant for the purposes of the definition of a 
foreign reporting

[[Page 59539]]

company, rather than state law convention.
    The final rule does not impose a requirement on state and Tribal 
agencies to inform FinCEN of laws and regulations that allow a non-U.S. 
entity to conduct activities within the United States. The CTA does not 
provide for general information collection from states or Indian tribes 
regarding the laws or other rules governing the ability of foreign 
entities to do business in a state or Tribal jurisdiction.
    Lastly, with respect to cost burdens, FinCEN recognizes the 
direction in the CTA to create a highly useful database while taking 
into account the costs to small businesses in a manner consistent with 
the statute. The regulatory impact analysis in Section V. below 
clarifies cost estimates based on comments received with respect to the 
proposed rule.
iii. Exemptions
    The CTA exempts from the definition of ``reporting company'' 
twenty-three specific types of entities.\186\ Many of these exempt 
entities are already subject to substantial federal and/or state 
regulation or already have to provide their beneficial ownership 
information to a governmental authority. The statute also authorizes 
the Secretary to exempt, by regulation, additional types of entities 
for which collecting BOI would neither serve the public interest nor be 
highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement 
agency efforts.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(i)-(xxiii), exempting from 
beneficial ownership information reporting requirements 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 entities registered pursuant to the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 entities, registered investment 
companies and advisers, venture capital fund advisers, insurance 
companies, state licensed insurance producers, entities registered 
pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, 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.
    \187\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. General Matters
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2) clarified ambiguous 
phrases in statutory exemptions to the definition of reporting company, 
notably in the exemptions for public utilities, large operating 
companies, subsidiaries of certain other types of exempt entities, and 
dormant entities. The proposed rule also made minor alterations to 
paragraph structure to enhance clarity and added short titles.
    Comments Received. Comments concerning exemptions as a general 
subject \188\ typically fell into two groups: those that wanted 
exemptions to be construed narrowly and thought new exemptions should 
not be created, and those that wanted existing exemptions to be 
broadened and/or thought more exemptions should be created. These 
comments also discussed filing requirements in connection with 
exemptions, the overall clarity of the exemptions, and the alignment of 
exemptions in the CTA and those in the 2016 CDD Rule.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Comments concerning specific exemptions are discussed in 
more detail in the relevant subsections below.
    \189\ One commenter noted that the list of exempt entities set 
out in the CTA did not align with those entities covered by the 2016 
CDD Rule, in particular by exempting charities and nonprofits, 
certain types of regulated non-bank financial institutions such as 
money services businesses (MSBs), and large operating companies. The 
comment observed that this would raise the issue of whether to 
conform the exemptions in the 2016 CDD Rule to those of the BOI 
reporting rule when FinCEN revised the 2016 CDD Rule as required by 
the CTA. The comment suggested that removing large operating 
companies would not be particularly problematic, but that other 
types of entities, such as charities, nonprofits and MSBs, would 
probably have to remain subject to the 2016 CDD Rule, even if not to 
the proposed BOI reporting rule. The comment stated that these 
discrepancies would potentially reduce the usefulness of the BOSS to 
financial institutions and law enforcement. FinCEN will address any 
larger issues that may arise from a disconnect between the 2016 CDD 
Rule and the final BOI reporting rule in the revisions to the 2016 
CDD Rule, which FinCEN is required to finalize no later than one 
year after the effective date of the BOI reporting rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous comments discussed filing obligations for exempt entities. 
Some commenters asserted that entities should have to file a form in 
order to claim an exemption. Others suggested that exempt entities 
should be permitted to file their BOI, even if FinCEN did not have the 
authority to require them to. One commenter, for example, suggested 
that exempt entities be permitted to file exemption certificates 
voluntarily with FinCEN. This could give a financial institution 
accessing the BOSS for CDD purposes documentation to rely upon if the 
institution were concerned that the entity's BOI was not in the BOSS. 
Another commenter suggested entities be required to seek exemption 
certificates in order to help identify entities unlawfully claiming to 
be exempt.
    Another commenter asked whether the regulation would preclude an 
exempt entity from filing a ``protective'' report, i.e., an initial BOI 
report that an entity would file despite believing that it qualified 
for an exemption in order to avoid being penalized if it unwittingly 
lost its exemption later. Another commenter requested that the rule 
address situations in which a reporting entity becomes exempt after 
filing an initial BOI report, or when an exempt entity ceases to be 
exempt. Relatedly, one commenter asked that the rule expressly state 
that exempt entities have no BOI reporting obligations unless or until 
they cease to fall within one of the exemptions.
    Concerning clarity, multiple state authorities indicated that they 
found the exemptions to be unclear; several urged FinCEN to develop and 
implement an online tool or ``wizard'' to help entities determine 
whether any specific exemptions would apply to their specific 
circumstances.
    Final Rule. After considering all comments, FinCEN is adopting 31 
CFR 1010.380(c)(2) largely as proposed, making small changes to improve 
clarity and without adding any additional exemptions, as explained in 
the next subsection.
    FinCEN considers the rule to be clear with respect to when an 
entity's reporting obligation begins or ends relative to when it 
becomes or ceases to be exempt. Under 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1), any entity 
that meets the definition of a ``reporting company'' must file a report 
of beneficial ownership with FinCEN. This applies to entities that have 
never been exempt and to those that were exempt but no longer are. 
Entities that are no longer exempt are subject to the special rule of 
31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(iv), which requires them to file a report within 
30 calendar days of ceasing to be exempt. FinCEN does not believe at 
this time that additional regulatory changes are needed to clarify 
these obligations. Nevertheless, FinCEN will monitor the application of 
each exemption and will assess the need for further guidance or FAQs 
accordingly. FinCEN will also consider issuing guidance to help the 
public understand and comply with CTA obligations.
    FinCEN acknowledges the comments urging that exempt entities be 
permitted or required to obtain exemption certificates. However, these 
comments did not identify a basis in the CTA for imposing that 
obligation on exempt entities, and FinCEN does not believe that a 
voluntary process is needed for such filings at this time, though 
FinCEN will continue to consider it.
    Finally, as a general matter, FinCEN believes it is appropriate to 
interpret ambiguities in those exemptions reasonably narrowly. The 
CTA's definition of ``reporting company'' is broad, the exemptions for 
twenty-three specific categories of entities are carefully 
circumscribed, and the expansion of these exempt categories

[[Page 59540]]

requires consultation and specific findings that BOI reporting would 
not be highly useful and serve the public interest. Those features of 
the CTA are consistent with its overall objective of enhancing 
financial transparency and making it more difficult for bad actors to 
conceal their illicit financial activities.\190\ Broad exemptions risk 
undercutting those efforts by creating loopholes that can be used to 
evade the CTA's reporting requirements. Congress's concern regarding 
potential abuse of the exemptions is also apparent in its decision to 
require the Secretary to continuously review whether exemptions are 
being used by illicit actors.\191\ As 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 CTA, noted in his 
December 9, 2020, floor statement accompanying the CTA, the twenty-
three exemptions are ``intended to be narrowly interpreted to prevent 
their use by entities that otherwise fail to disclose their beneficial 
owners to the federal government.'' \192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ See generally CTA, Section 6402.
    \191\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(i).
    \192\ Senator Sherrod Brown, National Defense Authorization Act, 
Congressional Record 166:208 (Dec. 9, 2020), p. S7311, available at 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-12-09/pdf/CREC-2020-12-09.pdf.
_____________________________________-

b. Additional Exemptions
    Proposed Rule. As discussed in Section III.E.iii, the CTA 
authorizes the Secretary to exempt additional entities or classes of 
entities from the definition of ``reporting company.'' \193\ Before 
doing so, the Secretary must determine--by regulation and with the 
written concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security--that requiring these entities to report their BOI 
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.\194\ In the NPRM, FinCEN did not propose any additional 
exemptions beyond the twenty-three specified in the CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv).
    \194\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Numerous commenters discussed whether or how 
FinCEN should use its statutory authority to add more exemptions to the 
definition of ``reporting company.'' Commenters offered a wide range of 
positions, the most common of which either expressed strong support for 
FinCEN's decision in the proposed rule not to include additional 
exemptions, or supported additional exemptions based upon existing 
regulatory requirements or commercial practices. A number of commenters 
asked that FinCEN exempt qualifying family offices, noting that such 
offices and their beneficial ownership are already known to federally 
regulated financial institutions and financial regulators, and are 
routinely reviewed and audited by the IRS and state tax authorities. A 
few commenters also urged FinCEN to exempt commodity pools that are 
operated by CFTC-registered commodity pool operators (CPOs) or advised 
by CFTC-registered commodity trading advisors (CTAs). These commenters 
noted that the CTA already exempts the CPOs and commodity trading 
advisors themselves. In addition, multiple commenters expressed support 
for exempting highly regulated entities that provide professional 
services, such as law firms and certain accounting firms, because they 
already provide beneficial ownership information to regulatory 
authorities. One commenter proposed that all money services businesses 
registered with a state should be exempted, whether or not registered 
with FinCEN, apparently on a similar theory.\195\ Commenters also 
suggested FinCEN consider exempting entities that already report BOI to 
the IRS or foreign authorities. For example, one commenter proposed 
that FinCEN exempt entities registered in jurisdictions where 
beneficial ownership information is public, semi-public, or otherwise 
accessible by the United States government. Other commenters proposed 
still other exemptions which are discussed throughout the rest of this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ As explained in greater detail in Section III.E.iii.b., 
FinCEN is not implementing any additional exemptions at this time. 
This comment, however, has prompted FinCEN to clarify the exemption 
that FinCEN had labeled the ``money transmitting business'' 
exemption. The commenter correctly read the statutory language, 
which the proposed rule had tracked verbatim, as exempting any 
``money transmitting business registered . . . under [31 U.S.C.] 
5330'' to apply to any money services businesses registered under 31 
CFR 1022.380, the FinCEN regulation that implements the registration 
requirement of 31 U.S.C. 5330. However, the proposed language may 
require a level of familiarity with the BSA and FinCEN regulations 
that reporting companies may not necessarily have. To reduce the 
risk of confusion, FinCEN has renamed the exemption the ``money 
services business'' exemption and has inserted additional language 
making clear that the exemption applies to all money services 
businesses registered under 31 CFR 1022.380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Rule. The final rule does not include any exemptions beyond 
the twenty-three specifically set out in the CTA. As discussed in the 
previous section, the CTA reflects Congress's concern that exemptions 
could create loopholes that illicit actors could exploit to evade 
reporting requirements. The CTA therefore sets a high bar for creating 
additional exemptions: the Secretary, the Attorney General, and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security must all agree that requiring BOI from 
such entities would neither serve the public interest nor help further 
key government objectives. While FinCEN has considered comments 
proposing additional exemptions, commenters generally did not provide 
enough information to support making those determinations at this time.
    FinCEN will continue to consider potential exemptions, including 
the extent to which certain entities may already report their 
beneficial owners to the federal government through means other than 
the CTA, such that those entities could potentially be exempt from the 
BOI reporting requirement. In addition, FinCEN will continue to 
consider suggestions for additional exemptions and consider regulatory 
and other implications associated with a given discretionary exemption.
c. Depository Institution Holding Companies
    Proposed Rule. The NPRM proposed to adopt the CTA exemption for a 
bank holding company verbatim in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(v), and added a 
short title to the exemption ``Depository institution holding company'' 
for clarity and ease of reference.
    Comments Received. FinCEN received several comments urging that 
this exemption be expanded to take into account various other 
categories of holding companies, including holding companies of other 
types of financial institutions or of exempt entities. One of these 
comments urged FinCEN to consider exempting all corporate owners and 
affiliates of exempt companies where corporate ownership information is 
already disclosed to state or federal regulators (e.g., insurance 
holding companies that must disclose the identity of their controlling 
shareholders to state insurance regulators).
    Final Rule. After considering all comments, including suggestions 
for additional exemptions, FinCEN is adopting 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(v) 
largely as proposed. Expanding this exemption to cover additional types 
of holding companies would require an additional exemption beyond the 
twenty-three specific ones provided for in the CTA.\196\ As explained 
in Section

[[Page 59541]]

III.E.iii.b, FinCEN does not believe that creating such an exemption 
would be appropriate at this time. Critically, commenters did not 
provide enough information about what additional types of holding 
companies should be exempt or why exempting them would satisfy the 
factors the CTA requires FinCEN to consider. However, FinCEN will 
continue to consider suggestions for additional exemptions, including 
those proposed by these commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Insurance Companies
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)(xii) adopted verbatim 
the statutory language describing an exemption from the definition of 
``reporting company'' for insurance companies.
    Comments Received. FinCEN received two comments on this exemption. 
One supported the retention of the statutory language. The other 
criticized that language for potentially applying to captive insurance 
companies, which would enable those entities to avoid reporting their 
beneficial owners.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the language of the proposed rule 
without change. The commenter that disapproved of the fact that the 
insurance company exemption might apply to captive insurance companies 
was critical of captive insurance arrangements and argued that such 
companies are ``high-risk entities.'' The commenter pointed to 
enforcement actions taken by the IRS against certain ``abusive micro-
captive'' insurance arrangements. While FinCEN acknowledges these 
concerns, the scope of this exemption was specified by Congress in the 
CTA.
    FinCEN does not opine here on whether or to what extent certain 
captive insurance companies, which can vary significantly in structure 
and size, might be able to properly claim this exemption. FinCEN may 
further consider captive insurance companies in connection with the 
study of exempt entities required under CTA section 6502(c).
e. Insurance Producers
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)(xiii) adopted 
verbatim the statutory language describing an exemption from the 
definition of ``reporting company'' for state-licensed insurance 
producers. Consistent with the CTA, this exemption applies to an entity 
that ``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 ``has an operating presence at a 
physical office within the United States.'' \197\ The CTA did not 
provide a definition of the latter ``operating presence'' phrase, but 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(6) defined this term 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xiii)(I)-(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. FinCEN received one comment on the insurance-
producer exemption, which accepted the exemption's basic framework but 
argued that FinCEN was adopting an unreasonably strict definition of 
the exemption's ``operating presence'' phrase in a way that would 
unduly burden certain producers that maintain a working office and 
residence at the same location. As noted, the CTA specifically limits 
this exemption to state-licensed insurance producers that have ``an 
operating presence at a physical office within the United States.'' 
\198\ Because the CTA did not define this term, FinCEN interpreted it 
in an effort to make clear the circumstances under which this exemption 
applied (as well as the exemption for large operating companies, which 
also includes this phrase as one of its elements). FinCEN's proposed 
definition of the term ``has an operating presence at a physical office 
within the United States,'' among other things, limited physical 
offices to those that are ``not the place of residence of any 
individual.'' The commenter argued that this exclusion of home offices 
would operate to deny the exemption to a number of insurance producers 
who would otherwise qualify. The commenter went on to argue that, 
particularly at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic had shown the 
feasibility and potential of working from home, this disqualification 
would unfairly burden these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xiii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Rule. FinCEN adopts the insurance-producer exemption as 
proposed, but modifies the definition of the term ``has an operating 
presence at a physical office within the United States'' to eliminate 
the limitation of physical offices to those that are ``not the place of 
residence of any individual.'' FinCEN is persuaded by the commenter's 
argument that this limitation did not advance the policy underlying 
this exemption and risked unduly burdening certain insurance producers.
f. Tax-Exempt Entities
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xix) adopted verbatim 
the CTA's language defining an exemption from the definition of 
``reporting company'' for tax-exempt entities, apart from adding an 
explanatory label for the exemption and changing the introductory 
``any'' to ``[a]ny entity that is.''
    Comments Received. FinCEN received comments both supportive and 
critical of the proposed rule. Supportive commenters stressed that a 
broader reading could create loopholes that illicit actors could 
exploit. Critical commenters argued that the exemption should be read 
more broadly to cover ancillary circumstances. For example, some 
commenters asserted that the exemption should cover entities that had 
applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status but were still awaiting a 
determination. Others argued that it should cover all nonprofits, even 
those that did not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c) 
of the Internal Revenue Code. Still others argued that, for entities 
that lose their tax-exempt status, the exemption should continue to 
apply beyond the 180 days that the CTA allows. These commenters 
generally argued that this is needed to avoid hardship, such as when an 
entity's tax-exempt status was retroactively revoked more than 180 days 
earlier, or to cover nonprofits that do not plan to seek federal tax-
exempt status.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed exemption for tax-
exempt entities as proposed. FinCEN believes the proposed rule, which 
is almost identical to the statutory language, sufficiently identifies 
the tax-exempt entities that are covered by the exemption. 
Additionally, FinCEN declines to adopt any additional exemptions at 
this time. The commenters seeking to expand this statutory exemption 
have not provided enough information to permit FinCEN to determine that 
BOI reporting would not be in the public interest or would not further 
key government efforts to protect national security and combat illicit 
activity. However, as discussed in Section III.E.iii.b, FinCEN will 
continue to consider suggestions for additional exemptions, including 
those proposed by these commenters.
    In addition, FinCEN recognizes the concerns raised about potential 
exploitation of this exemption as well as the following exemption for 
entities assisting tax-exempt entities. As one commenter highlighted, 
Senator Sherrod Brown stated on the Senate

[[Page 59542]]

floor shortly before passage: ``The exemption provided to certain 
charitable and nonprofit entities also merits narrow construction and 
careful review in light of past evidence of wrongdoers misusing 
charities, trusts, foundations, and other nonprofit entities to launder 
funds and advance criminal and civil misconduct.'' \199\ Treasury has 
also noted instances where criminals and terrorist groups have abused 
charitable organizations.\200\ FinCEN will monitor the application of 
these exemptions and assess the need for further guidance, notices, or 
FAQs accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ 166 Cong. Rec. S7311 (daily ed. Dec. 9, 2020) (statement 
of Senator Sherrod Brown).
    \200\ See Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment, 
(Feb. 2022), pp. 24, 38, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Money-Laundering-Risk-Assessment.pdf; 
See Treasury, ``National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment,'' 
(Feb. 2022), pp. 23-35, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Terrorist-Financing-Risk-Assessment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Entity Assisting a Tax-Exempt Entity
    Proposed Rule. Besides inserting a short title and incorporating 
several technical clarifications, 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xx) of the 
proposed rule tracks the relevant provision of the CTA.\201\ The 
proposed rule specified that an entity assisting a tax-exempt entity, 
was one that (i) operates exclusively to provide financial assistance 
to, or hold governance rights over, a tax-exempt entity, (ii) is a U.S. 
person, (iii) is beneficially owned or controlled exclusively by one or 
more U.S. persons that are U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence, and (iv) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. One commenter recommended that the final rule 
change the title of this exemption to ``Entity exclusively providing 
financial assistance to or holding governance rights over a tax exempt 
entity,'' consistent with the statute and the defining language that 
immediately follows. The commenter noted that the exemption was 
unusual, unprecedented in the United States, and does not exist in any 
other beneficial ownership registry worldwide. The commenter argued, 
therefore, that the exemption requires a precise title description so 
that entities that do not qualify for it are not encouraged by the 
title to claim the exemption and attempt to broaden it.
    Final Rule. FinCEN is adopting the text in 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(xx) of the proposed rule, including the short title of 
the sub-section as proposed, ``Entity assisting a tax-exempt entity.'' 
FinCEN believes this short title succinctly describes the topic for 
ease of reference and encapsulates the provision of financial 
assistance to, or the holding of governance rights over tax-exempt 
entities described in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xix). Additionally, FinCEN 
does not share the commenter's concern regarding the risk that entities 
may misunderstand or impermissibly broaden the exemption based solely 
upon the short title. The technical requirements of the exemption are 
clearly specified and the short title of the sub-section does not alter 
the operative regulatory language.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ See e.g., Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 
331 U.S. 519, 528 (1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Large Operating Companies
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxi) clarified an 
exemption relating to what the proposed regulations have termed ``large 
operating companies.'' Under the CTA, 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.'' \203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule offered clarifications to each of these three 
statutory elements. First, concerning who counts as a full-time 
employee, the proposed rule borrowed familiar IRS concepts widely used 
by employers in order to promote regulatory consistency and to make 
determining whether an entity passed the threshold of 20 full-time 
employees straightforward.\204\ Second, concerning what counts as gross 
receipts or sales, the proposed rule focused on U.S. sources and also 
explained, again using well-known concepts in U.S. tax practice, how 
entities could use income reported on consolidated filings to determine 
whether the exemption applied.\205\ And third, the proposed rule 
defined the phrase ``has an 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.'' \206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxi)(A).
    \205\ Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxi)(C).
    \206\ Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxi)(B), (f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Some commenters expressed concern as a general 
matter that the large operating company exemption will require ongoing 
monitoring, as it could be particularly susceptible to abuse.\207\ 
Commenters also advocated for legislative changes to narrow the 
exemption, given their concerns that the exemption could too easily 
allow bad actors to avoid reporting beneficial ownership information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ By ``abuse,'' these comments appear to mean that companies 
can easily manipulate aspects of their business to satisfy all three 
conditions, leading to more entities claiming the exemption than 
Congress may have intended or than is appropriate. FinCEN is not 
aware of any estimates that Congress or others made of the number of 
entities that this exemption was intended to cover, so it is 
difficult to evaluate how broad of an exemption is appropriate, 
other than by the qualitative method of comparing the regulatory 
text to the statutory text. So long as the regulatory text does not 
significantly change the reach of the exemption as set forth in the 
CTA, and so long as the tests laid out in regulation are not 
significantly easier or harder to satisfy than those laid out in the 
statute, FinCEN will consider that the exemption is operating as 
Congress intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also focused variously on the three factors in the large 
operating company exemption. Comments were particularly numerous and 
wide-ranging on the employee factor. Some commenters stated their 
support for the approach taken by the proposed rule, while other 
commenters asked FinCEN to either broaden or narrow its scope based on 
considerations involving the database's usefulness and potential 
burdens. Other commenters suggested that the employee count should be 
evaluated on a consolidated basis, rather than on an entity-by-entity 
basis, to the extent the entity is part of a consolidated group. These 
commenters noted that such an approach would conform the employee count 
with the approach taken in the gross receipts factor.
    A few commenters focused on the gross receipts or sales factor. 
Some commenters supported the regulatory interpretation of limiting the 
exemption criteria to gross receipts or sales in the United States, 
while others stated that this factor should not be limited to U.S. 
activities.
    Other commenters also addressed the physical presence factor. These 
commenters stated that the restrictiveness of the physical presence 
factor fails to reflect current business realities, and that the 
regulation should

[[Page 59543]]

reflect the widespread use of shared workspaces and home offices.
    More broadly, several commenters noted that the exemption's 
criteria of 20 full-time employees and $5 million in gross receipts are 
difficult to prove or maintain over an indefinite period of time. 
Commenters suggested that the number of employees should be tied to a 
reference period, such as an average over the last year, or the year 
preceding a specific date, such as the date of an entity's federal 
income tax filing. Lastly, commenters raised a number of technical 
suggestions--for example, to clarify how entities should account for 
circumstances such as when a company undergoes a merger or acquisition.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(xxi) without change. The full-time employee factor 
expresses well-known and well-established general business tax 
principles and should not require further elaboration. FinCEN declines 
to permit companies to consolidate employee headcount across affiliated 
entities. Although the CTA specifies that gross receipts or sales are 
to be consolidated, the CTA contains no similar specification for 
employee headcount.\208\ To the contrary, it provides that the 
exception applies to an ``entity that . . . employs'' more than 20 
employees, indicating that the determination of the number of employees 
is to be made on an entity-by-entity basis.\209\ In terms of assessing 
whether an entity has the requisite number of employees to qualify for 
the exemption, FinCEN expects that companies will regularly evaluate 
whether they qualify (or no longer qualify) for the exemption. FinCEN 
believes that such evaluations should be as simple as possible, and as 
consistent as possible from reporting company to reporting company, and 
for these reasons FinCEN rejects the suggestion of certain commenters 
that the employee number be calculated as an average of several numbers 
over a period of time. FinCEN will consider additional guidance or FAQs 
in order to clarify specific factual circumstances that arise in the 
course of evaluating the applicability of this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxi)(II).
    \209\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxi)(I) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, FinCEN does not believe changes to the 
language of the gross receipts or sales factors are appropriate. In 
particular, FinCEN declines the suggestion by some commenters to expand 
the consideration of revenue to include non-U.S. sources. The text of 
this exemption focuses on activity occurring in the United States and 
revenue reported on U.S. income tax returns, and the attribution of 
revenue to a national source is well understood by businesses, 
particularly the larger businesses to which this exemption will apply. 
Similarly, FinCEN assesses that businesses covered by this exemption 
understand that events such as mergers and acquisitions can affect 
revenue calculations and payroll decisions. Therefore, FinCEN believes 
determining whether this exemption applies should be straightforward 
even in years when such events take place.
    Because of the change to the definition of the term ``has an 
operating presence at a physical office within the United States,'' 
discussed in greater detail in connection with the insurance producer 
exemption in Section III.E.iii.e, the large operating company exemption 
may apply more broadly than it would have been under the proposed rule. 
However, the only additional entities that will now qualify for this 
exemption under the final rule are large operating companies whose 
physical presence in the United States consists exclusively of 
properties used as someone's residence. FinCEN assesses that entities 
of this type are likely to be few. Most companies of the size necessary 
to take advantage of this exemption are likely to have some operating 
presence in non-residential premises and would therefore have been able 
to take advantage of the exemption under the formulation of the 
proposed rule, as they will under the final rule. FinCEN therefore 
believes that the overall effect of this change will be insignificant 
for this exemption.
    Finally, because these factors are established by statute, FinCEN 
lacks the authority to address concerns regarding their unfairness or 
inherent risk. Nevertheless, FinCEN takes seriously the need to ensure 
that no exemption is misused and will monitor the application of this 
exemption, remain vigilant against potential abuses, and evaluate the 
need for further guidance or FAQs.
i. Subsidiaries
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxii) clarified the 
CTA's exemption for entities in which ``the ownership interests are 
owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more'' of 
certain exempt entities identified in the statute.\210\ FinCEN called 
this the ``subsidiary exemption'' and interpreted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Commenters expressed concern about the scope of 
this exemption. Many commenters urged FinCEN to clarify that the 
exemption would apply only to ``wholly controlled or wholly owned'' 
subsidiaries (versus the proposed rule that reads ``controlled or 
wholly owned'') in order to make the exception as narrow as possible 
and avoid creating a loophole to evade reporting requirements. By 
contrast, several commenters suggested that the exemption should be 
widened to subsidiaries that are ``majority owned.'' In addition, one 
commenter recommended that this exemption be expanded to include 
holding companies owning only CTA-exempt entities.
    Final Rule. FinCEN is adopting 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxii) as 
proposed, with a minor grammatical edit. While hewing to the statutory 
language, the interpretation 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. FinCEN does not need to 
add ``wholly'' before ``controlled'' because FinCEN assesses that the 
latter covers the intended concept of control set out in the CTA.\211\ 
FinCEN also determined that extending the exemption to majority-owned 
subsidiaries would include entities unintended by the language of the 
CTA. With respect to the recommendation to broadly interpret the 
subsidiary exemption to include holding companies owning only CTA-
exempt entities, the CTA provision does not provide for such an 
expansion and the subsidiary exemption focuses on subsidiaries, not 
parents, of exempt entities. In addition, for the reasons discussed in 
``Section III.E.iii.b--Additional Exemptions'' and ``Section 
III.E.iii.c--Depository Institution Holding Companies'' above, FinCEN 
is not implementing additional exemptions beyond the twenty-three 
specific statutory ones at this time, including to cover non-depository 
institution holding companies. However, FinCEN will continue to 
consider suggestions for additional exemptions, including those 
proposed by commenters concerning this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

j. Pooled Investment Vehicles
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xviii) implemented 
the

[[Page 59544]]

exemption for pooled investment vehicles, and proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(f)(7) defined the term ``pooled investment vehicle.'' Both 
provisions used the applicable CTA language \212\ verbatim. Proposed 31 
CFR 1010.380(f)(7) defined a ``pooled investment vehicle'' as: (i) any 
investment company, as defined under the Investment Company Act of 
1940,\213\ or (ii) any company that would be an investment company 
under that authority but for the exclusion provided therein \214\ and 
is identified by its legal name by the applicable investment adviser in 
the requisite Securities and Exchange Commission form. Proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(xviii) exempted any pooled investment vehicle that is 
operated or advised by certain other exempted entities, namely, a bank, 
credit union, broker-dealer in securities, investment company or 
investment adviser, or venture capital fund adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(10), (a)(11)(xviii).
    \213\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a).
    \214\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. A number of commenters, including most of those 
representing the investment industry, generally supported this 
exemption and sought clarifications as to its scope and applicability 
vis-[agrave]-vis specific scenarios (e.g., its applicability to 
entities within the structure of a pooled investment vehicle, or to 
certain funds not denominated ``pooled investment vehicles'' but that 
otherwise satisfy the criteria for exemption). Certain commenters also 
proposed that additional types of investment vehicles, structured 
similarly to pooled investment vehicles but not expressly exempted by 
the CTA, also be exempted from the CTA's requirements.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xviii) as 
proposed, as well as 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(7) with a clarifying 
modification. As an initial matter, FinCEN understands that the 
statutory exemption is the result of extensive consideration and 
reflects Congress's judgment as to the appropriate scope of the 
exemption. FinCEN accordingly views the statutory text of the exemption 
as a reflection of deliberate and considered decisions to include and 
exclude certain types of vehicles, from which FinCEN is reluctant to 
deviate.
    FinCEN further notes that the term ``pooled investment vehicle'' 
encompasses a wide variety of investment products with a wide range of 
names and structures, which present a range of risk profiles. It is 
accordingly impracticable for FinCEN to prospectively opine on the 
applicability of the exemption to specific structures that may not 
carry the name ``pooled investment vehicle.'' However, as a general 
principle, FinCEN notes that a vehicle's eligibility for this exemption 
does not hinge on its nominal designation, but rather on whether the 
vehicle or entity satisfies the elements articulated in the final 
regulatory text.
    A few commenters sought clarity as to how entities within the 
structure of a pooled investment vehicle would be treated, noting, 
among other things, that pooled investment vehicles will routinely 
create subsidiary legal entities for a variety of purposes related to 
the administration of the pooled investment vehicle, including to 
effect specific investments or acquisitions. While distinct legal 
entities that are wholly owned by exempted pooled investment vehicles 
may be integrally related to the administration of those pooled 
investment vehicles, whether they are exempt from the reporting 
requirements of the CTA depends on whether they themselves, in their 
own right, meet the criteria of an exemption. FinCEN declines to 
provide a blanket expansion of this exemption to include all entities 
related to a pooled investment vehicle or any subsidiary entity that 
would be used as a vehicle to onboard new outside capital or assets.
    A few commenters noted that the timeframe between the creation of a 
pooled investment vehicle and its identification on the SEC's Form ADV 
often exceeds the beneficial ownership disclosure deadline that will 
apply to new companies because of the need to obtain licenses and 
regulatory approvals, among other things. These commenters contended 
that it would be unreasonable to apply the general disclosure deadline 
to an entity in the process of becoming exempt only because it had not 
concluded all of the requisite steps within this timeframe. These 
commenters also noted that it would be impracticable for an adviser to 
file an update to a Form ADV in a manner inconsistent with existing SEC 
filing requirements for the sole purpose of availing itself of this 
exemption. FinCEN agrees, and is accordingly modifying Section 
1010.380(f)(7)(ii)(B) to read (new text emphasized):

    (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 or will be so identified in the 
next annual updating amendment Form ADV required to be filed by the 
applicable investment adviser pursuant to rule 204-1 under the 
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (17 CFR 275.204-1).

    A number of commenters sought a variety of other exemptions for 
entities not specified, contending principally that nonexempt vehicles 
that were subject to regulation and supervision, similarly structured, 
and subject to disclosure requirements either via Form ADV or similar 
requirements should be deemed low risk and be able to avail themselves 
of this exemption. FinCEN declines to seek to expand the exemption at 
this time. As FinCEN has noted, in its view, the statute reflects 
deliberate decisions to exclude certain types of entities from the 
scope of the exemption, and to include others.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

k. Investment Company or Investment Adviser; Venture Capital Fund 
Advisers
    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(x) was intended to 
implement the exemption for investment companies and investment 
advisers, and proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xi) was intended to 
implement the exemption for venture capital fund advisers. Both 
provisions used the applicable CTA language \216\ largely verbatim, 
with minor structural adjustments and the express addition of the term 
``venture capital fund adviser'' for ease of reference. Like the CTA, 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(x) defined an ``investment company'' 
\217\ and an ``investment adviser'' \218\ by reference to their 
definitions in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and it required that 
they be registered with the SEC under one of two authorities.\219\ 
Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xi) cross-referenced the exemption for a 
``venture capital fund adviser'' under the Investment Company Act of 
1940 \220\ and required the adviser to have made a requisite filing 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(x)-(xi).
    \217\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-3.
    \218\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-2.
    \219\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq. (Investment Company Act of 1940); 
15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq. (Investment Advisers Act of 1940).
    \220\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-3(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. One commenter requested that FinCEN clarify that 
this exemption encompasses vehicles used by an investment adviser that 
serve as general partners or managing members of pooled investment 
vehicles advised by the investment adviser. Another commenter sought 
additional exemptions for state-registered investment advisers and 
other venture capital advisers not presently within the scope of the 
proposed exemption.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(x) and 31 
CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xi) as proposed. These exemptions are quite specific 
in the CTA, and Congress has further specified

[[Page 59545]]

that the exemption for subsidiaries should apply to the subsidiaries of 
these defined venture capital fund advisers, investment companies, and 
investment advisers. It therefore appears to FinCEN that there is 
little scope for clarification here. If an entity used by an exempt 
adviser satisfies the criteria for one of these exemptions, it is 
exempt; if it does not satisfy any such criteria, for FinCEN to treat 
the entity as exempt would not be a clarification of this exemption, 
but rather the creation of a new exemption. FinCEN declines to create 
such an exemption at this time. Similar to the treatment of pooled 
investment vehicles, in FinCEN's view the statutory text reflects 
deliberate decisions to exclude and include certain types of entities 
from the scope of the exemption.
    With respect to state-registered investment advisers, the extent of 
state supervision varies significantly, and FinCEN accordingly does not 
believe that seeking a blanket exemption for state-registered entities 
is warranted at this time. As for certain types of excluded venture 
capital advisers, FinCEN does not view disclosure obligations alone as 
sufficient to justify the expansion of this exemption, given Congress's 
choice to include only certain types of advisers in the exemption. As 
previously noted, any expansion beyond the enumerated statutory 
exemptions also requires the concurrence of the Departments of Justice 
and Homeland Security and is subject to an assessment of statutory 
criteria regarding the public interest and the information's 
usefulness.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

l. Inactive Entities
    Proposed Rule. The CTA exempts inactive entities from the BOI 
reporting requirement.\222\ In 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxiii) of the 
NPRM, FinCEN reiterated the CTA's definition, proposed a title to the 
subsection for ease of reference, and proposed clarifications regarding 
the scope of the exemption. Specifically, FinCEN proposed to define an 
``inactive entity'' as one that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiii).

--was in existence on or before January 1, 2020 (i.e., the date of 
enactment of the CTA),
--is not engaged in active business,
--is not owned by a foreign person, whether directly or indirectly, 
wholly or partially,
--has not experienced any change in ownership in the preceding 12-month 
period,
--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
--does not otherwise hold any kind or type of assets, whether in the 
United States or abroad, including any ownership interest in any 
corporation, limited liability company, or other similar entity.

    Comments Received. Commenters generally sought clarifications or 
proposed expanding this exemption. Some comments argued that the $1,000 
limit in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxiii)(E) was low and suggested raising 
it to $3,000 to account for inactive fees (e.g., annual expenses 
including state franchise taxes, registered agents, domain 
registration, attorney and accounting fees, etc.). Commenters also 
urged that 1010.380(c)(2)(xxiii)(F) should clarify that the exemption 
would apply even if an entity had a bank account or owned certain 
incidental assets, such as the rights to its business name or website 
domain. Another commenter asked FinCEN to clarify in the preamble that 
the phrase ``any change in ownership'' in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(xxiii)(D) would cover any alteration of a nominal or 
beneficial owner of an entity, any addition or subtraction of an owner, 
and any change in the percentage or nature of ownership interests held 
by a specific person, including due to a purchase or transfer of a pre-
existing entity. The same commenter urged FinCEN to strengthen 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(xxiii)(D) and (E) by identifying the precise date from 
which the 12-month period would be measured.
    Several commenters asked for clarity regarding the treatment of 
temporarily or permanently dissolved, or terminated entities, including 
whether an entity that closed down in 2021 would be required to report 
its BOI. One commenter suggested permitting entities that completed 
their legal dissolution by a specified date (e.g., the enactment of the 
CTA, or the effective date of the BOI reporting regulations) did not 
have to report. One commenter requested that FinCEN clarify the phrase 
``engaged in active business'' in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxiii)(B) in 
the context of a dissolved entity, noting that winding up activities 
could be considered ``active business.'' The same commenter noted that 
the statute and proposed rule were also unclear with respect to whether 
temporarily or administratively dissolved entities would be treated as 
reporting companies or exempt entities under this exemption.
    Final Rule. FinCEN is adopting the rule as proposed. With respect 
to the recommendation that FinCEN specify the date that triggers the 
12-month time period in both 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxiii)(D) and (E), 
FinCEN has chosen not to identify a date because the agency believes 
the relevant statutory language is best read to cover any 12-month 
period. FinCEN believes that any effort to create specific rules for 
when an entity is or is not engaging in active business would be both 
over- and under-inclusive. For example, with respect to terminating an 
entity, FinCEN believes the variety in types of termination and degrees 
of finality under state laws would require numerous special rules for 
small variations, and would still result in confusion if any 
circumstance were inadvertently unaddressed. Moreover, such an attempt 
would undermine FinCEN's goal of creating a uniform framework capable 
of accommodating different state practices or factual circumstances. 
With respect to the meaning of ``any change in ownership,'' FinCEN 
believes the proposed regulation is sufficiently clear; it would cover 
any and all changes in an entity's ownership.
    Although FinCEN believes the text of this provision is clear, the 
agency understands that specific factual scenarios may arise during 
implementation that warrant additional clarification. In those cases, 
the agency welcomes questions from stakeholders and anticipates 
addressing their concerns through guidance.

F. Reporting Violations

    Proposed Rule. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(g) adopted the language of 
31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(1) and clarified four potential ambiguities. First, 
the proposed regulations clarified that the term ``person'' includes 
any individual, reporting company, or other entity. Second, the 
proposed regulations clarified that the term ``beneficial ownership 
information'' includes any information provided to FinCEN pursuant to 
the CTA or the regulations implementing it. Third, the proposed 
regulations clarified 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 this section. While only reporting 
companies are directly

[[Page 59546]]

required to file reports 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 regulation 1010.380(g)(5) clarified that a 
person ``fails to report'' complete or updated beneficial ownership 
information to FinCEN, within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 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 
reporting companies themselves. To the extent an individual willfully 
directs a reporting company not to report or willfully fails to report 
while in substantial control of a reporting company, individual 
liability is necessary to ensure that companies comply with their 
obligations. This is essential to achieving the CTA's primary objective 
of preventing illicit actors from using legal entities to conceal their 
ownership and activities. Illicit actors who form entities and fail to 
report required beneficial ownership information may not be deterred by 
liability applicable only to such entities. Absent individual 
liability, illicit 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.
    Comments Received. Commenters generally sought clarification 
regarding the applicability of the reporting violations provisions. 
Some commenters encouraged FinCEN to minimize the potential for evasion 
or other related criminal behavior. One commenter asked that FinCEN 
coordinate with state and Tribal agencies to include a checkbox on 
existing state forms confirming that the filer has filed with FinCEN. 
One commenter asked that FinCEN provide examples of reporting 
violations.
    Some commenters suggested that FinCEN prioritize education and 
focus on promoting compliance, reserving enforcement for those acting 
in bad faith, and noted that many businesses may not be aware of their 
reporting obligations at the outset. One commenter suggested that 
FinCEN establish a compliance hotline system to assist reporting 
companies. Others expressed concern about the breadth of the penalty 
structure. A number of commenters suggested that small businesses 
acting in good faith should be given a reasonable opportunity to 
remediate violations and come into compliance, consistent with the 
limited statutory safe harbor for correcting inaccurate 
information.\223\ Many commenters asked for relief or a safe harbor for 
various situations where a reporting company may not be able to report 
the required information, where a beneficial owner or company applicant 
refuses to provide the required information, or where the filer of the 
report is relying on information provided by the reporting company or 
another individual, such as a trustee. One commenter asked FinCEN, 
before pursuing an enforcement case or action, to consider whether a 
filer has correctly filed other forms with another government agency 
with similar information, such as the IRS, and provide an exemption 
when those forms are accurately filed. Another suggested that U.S. 
citizens be exempted from penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters sought clarity on the applicability of the 
violations provisions. One asked whether both civil and criminal 
penalties could apply to the same conduct, and another asked whether a 
company applicant could be held liable. One commenter asked FinCEN to 
exclude senior officers and others without a management role in the 
reporting company. Another asked FinCEN to limit liability only to 
beneficial owners and reporting companies.
    Many commenters sought clarity on the ``willful'' standard and what 
constitutes willfulness. One commenter suggested that ``reasonable 
cause'' be the standard for violations. Another expressed concern 
regarding uniform application of the standard by FinCEN investigators.
    Final Rule. The final rule adopts the proposed rule in large part, 
with a clarifying modification to proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(g)(5) 
(renumbered 31 CFR 1010.380(g)(4) in the final rule). FinCEN views the 
statutory text to be sufficient regarding the availability of both 
civil and criminal penalties for the identified willful reporting 
violations, and it believes this approach satisfies the congressional 
intent to hold individuals accountable for such violations. In 
addition, the statute is clear regarding who may be held liable for 
willful violations, and for this reason FinCEN also declines to exclude 
specific categories of individuals from liability, as requested by some 
commenters. Willfulness is a legal concept that is well established in 
existing caselaw, and FinCEN will consider all facts relevant to a 
determination of willfulness when deciding whether to pursue 
enforcement actions. With regard to the availability of other 
penalties, FinCEN notes that nothing in the statute prohibits the 
application of other available criminal or civil provisions to the 
extent they are applicable.
    With respect to compliance, as stated in this final rule, FinCEN 
intends to prioritize education and outreach to ensure that all 
reporting companies and individuals are aware of and on notice 
regarding their reporting obligations. FinCEN notes that the effective 
date of January 1, 2024 and the one-year compliance period essentially 
give existing reporting companies over two years from the publication 
of this rule to prepare to come into compliance with their reporting 
obligations. FinCEN will take into consideration the request to add 
examples of reporting violations in any future guidance or FAQs.
    The final rule modifies proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(g)(5) to clarify 
the role of an individual in a reporting company's failure to satisfy a 
reporting obligation. The final rule states that a person is considered 
to have failed to report complete or updated beneficial ownership 
information if the person causes the failure or is a senior officer of 
the entity at the time of the failure. In eliminating the reference to 
substantial control and incorporating the existing definition of 
``senior officer'' in 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(8), FinCEN believes that this 
revised provision reduces potential confusion and provides clarity as 
to who may be liable for a reporting company's failure to file updates 
and corrections. FinCEN hopes that this clarity, in turn, will ensure 
that the information in the database remains as complete and accurate 
as possible. FinCEN considered other alternatives in defining the 
category of individual that should be held responsible for willful 
violations,

[[Page 59547]]

including those in the substantial control definition. Ultimately, 
FinCEN believes that the approach of holding individuals in these 
specific positions of authority responsible for ensuring that the 
information filed with FinCEN is correct and up to date provides 
additional clarity and certainty and appropriately rests that 
obligation with those in charge of an entity.

G. Effective Date

    Proposed Rule. The CTA authorizes FinCEN to determine when the 
regulations implementing BOI reporting obligations take effect.\224\ 
FinCEN did not include an effective date in the proposed regulation. 
Rather, it sought comment on the timing of the effective date and any 
potential factors it should consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ 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].'' 31 U.S.C. 
5336(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Commenters largely focused on the need for 
FinCEN to provide notice and guidance to the public about the BOI 
reporting requirements and the relationships between this final rule 
and both the access rule and the 2016 CDD Rule revisions. Some 
commenters noted that FinCEN should first staff and train its call 
center, conduct extensive outreach, and deliver educational materials 
to secretaries of state, Tribal offices, and the registered agent and 
legal communities. Others noted that the effective date should be 
sufficiently far out to allow for adequate notification to all affected 
persons. Other commenters proposed that the effective date of the 
reporting requirements should be the same as the effective date of the 
revised CDD Rule. Some commenters stated that all three rulemakings 
should be completed before any of the rules take effect, while others 
noted that the 2016 CDD Rule should be rescinded immediately upon the 
effective date of the final reporting rule.
    Additional commenters requested the opportunity to comment on the 
three rulemakings contemporaneously. They argued that their views of 
the reporting requirements may be affected by how the reported 
information would be accessed and disclosed, and how it would be 
accounted for in the revision of the 2016 CDD Rule. Some of these 
comments addressed anticipated aspects of the access and revised CDD 
rules.
    Final Rule. The final rule sets an effective date of January 1, 
2024. FinCEN recognizes that collecting complete and accurate BOI 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 help 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 these national security and law 
enforcement objectives and support Congress' goals in enacting the CTA.
    FinCEN has adopted the effective date for this final rule based on 
several practical factors, including, for example, 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; allowing 
reporting companies, and small businesses in particular, sufficient 
time to receive notice of and comply with the new rules; and the need 
for FinCEN to take steps to design and build the BOSS and to work with 
secretaries of state, Tribal authorities, industry groups and small 
business, and other stakeholders to ensure a thorough and complete 
understanding of the rules.
    Moreover, aligning the effective date with the beginning of the 
calendar year may help to align this reporting obligation with other 
reporting and compliance obligations. FinCEN recognizes the need to 
ensure that reporting companies, secretaries of state and Tribal 
offices, and other stakeholders have a thorough understanding of the 
final rule and its requirements, both before and after the effective 
date. Accordingly, as discussed in Section B.i, implementation efforts 
include, as many commenters have stressed, the drafting of guidance and 
FAQs for reporting companies and third parties, help desk training, and 
a comprehensive communications and outreach strategy, among other 
things. FinCEN also intends to implement an outreach strategy with key 
stakeholders, and in particular, secretaries of state, to ensure a 
thorough understanding of the final rule requirements. In addition to 
these efforts, as will be described in the access rule NPRM, FinCEN 
will need to engage intensively with authorized users of the BOSS that 
will have access to BOI, such as federal, state, local, and Tribal law 
enforcement authorities, to draft and negotiate memoranda of 
understanding and access and security agreements for authorized users 
and to develop standard operating procedures and internal protocols for 
the adjudication of inquiries relating to reporting and disclosure.
    In addition, FinCEN recognizes that a fully operational BOSS that 
is ready to receive reports from reporting companies is necessary to 
implement the reporting rule. FinCEN is working expeditiously to 
complete steps to design and build the BOSS so that it can collect and 
provide access to BOI. Upon the CTA's enactment, FinCEN began a process 
for BOSS program initiation and acquisition planning that has led to 
the development of a detailed development and implementation plan for 
the initial BOSS release. Based on this plan, FinCEN has moved 
expeditiously into the execution phase of the project, which includes 
several technology projects that will be executed in parallel. The 
access rule will provide a high-level description of how the BOSS will 
operate.
    The selected effective date is intended to provide adequate time to 
complete the BOSS design and development and to secure the necessary 
appropriations to operate and maintain the BOSS on an ongoing basis. 
Assuming adequate funding, FinCEN intends for the BOSS to be ready to 
receive reports and provide access to authorized users by the January 
1, 2024, effective date. FinCEN also intends to propose and finalize 
the rulemaking governing access to BOI by this date.
    Importantly, FinCEN continues to seek appropriated funds to hire 
the necessary staff to implement the final rules, conduct outreach to 
stakeholders, and design and build the BOSS. FinCEN has requested a 
budget increase in its FY23 budget request to support BOSS operations 
and maintenance and to hire CTA staff. Absent additional 
appropriations, FinCEN may need to adjust its implementation and 
outreach plans.

H. Other Comments

i. Outreach and the Need To Educate the Public About Reporting 
Requirements
    Comments Received. Some commenters recommended that FinCEN set an 
effective date that provides sufficient time for reporting and non-
reporting entities to understand the final rule and implement 
appropriate compliance processes, and for FinCEN to conduct adequate 
outreach to the public. In addition, commenters asked whether FinCEN 
would assist reporting companies, beneficial owners, and company 
applicants by responding to questions regarding specific fact patterns 
relating to regulatory interpretations and exemptions. One commenter 
also requested that FinCEN be authorized to issue advisory opinions 
when requested by reporting companies,

[[Page 59548]]

beneficial owners, or company applicants that they could rely on as 
authoritative for purposes of complying with the BOI reporting 
requirements.
    Response. FinCEN envisions committing significant resources upon 
publication of the final rule to prepare for and enable the rule's 
successful implementation by stakeholders. FinCEN anticipates that 
these resources will be dedicated to outreach; the drafting and 
issuance of guidance, FAQs, and interpretive advice; and other 
procedures and activities. FinCEN recognizes the need to ensure that 
reporting companies, authorized users, and other stakeholders have a 
thorough understanding of the rule and its requirements, both before 
and after the effective date. In addition, FinCEN remains mindful of 
the imperative to minimize any associated burdens on reporting 
companies while also fulfilling the CTA's directives for establishing 
an effective reporting framework.\225\ FinCEN appreciates that outreach 
and education is an important element of the effort to reduce any such 
compliance burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(F), (b)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN recognizes the expectation expressed by secretaries of state 
that they will need to field a high volume of questions and devote 
significant resources to addressing reporting companies' concerns, even 
with an effective date that provides significant time to educate 
reporting companies about their responsibilities, distribute guidance, 
and ensure that reporting mechanisms are fully functional and user-
friendly. A coordinated effort with state and Tribal authorities will 
be crucial to ensuring proper implementation and broad education about 
these reporting requirements. FinCEN intends to conduct substantial 
outreach with stakeholders, including secretaries of state as well as 
Indian tribes, trade groups, and others, to ensure coordinated efforts 
to provide notice and sufficient guidance to all potential reporting 
companies.
    FinCEN notes that 31 U.S.C. 5336(g) requires the Director of 
FinCEN, in promulgating regulations carrying out the CTA, to reach out 
to members of the small business community and other appropriate 
parties to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the process for the 
entities subject to the CTA's requirements. FinCEN has engaged in such 
outreach throughout the rulemaking process. In April 2021, FinCEN 
issued an ANPRM soliciting comments from the public, including from 
members of the small business community. Following the issuance of the 
ANPRM, FinCEN met with several small business trade associations to 
receive input on how to make the reporting process efficient and 
effective for small businesses. In December 2021, FinCEN issued an NPRM 
in which FinCEN proposed regulations relating to the reporting of BOI 
and solicited input from the public, including from members of the 
small business community. In response to both the ANPRM and NPRM, 
FinCEN received and considered numerous comments from small businesses 
and organizations representing small business interests. In addition, 
FinCEN has consulted with the Small Business Administration's Office of 
Advocacy throughout the rulemaking process.
ii. Interaction With Other Rulemakings
    This final rule is one of three required rulemakings to implement 
the CTA. The CTA requires that FinCEN also promulgate rules to 
establish the statute's protocols for access to and disclosure of BOI, 
and to revise the 2016 CDD Rule, consistent with the requirements of 
section 6403(d) of the CTA.
    Specifically, 31 U.S.C. 5336(c) requires the Secretary to issue 
regulations regarding access by authorized parties to BOI that FinCEN 
will collect pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5336(b). The access rule would 
implement 31 U.S.C. 5336(c) and explain which parties would have access 
to BOI, under what circumstances, as well as how the parties would 
generally be required to handle and safeguard BOI.
    The CTA also requires that FinCEN rescind and revise portions of 
the 2016 CDD Rule within one year after the effective date of the BOI 
reporting rule.\226\ 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).\227\ The CTA identifies three purposes for this revision: (1) to 
bring the 2016 CDD 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.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(1).
    \227\ 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)[.]'').
    \228\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(1)(A)-(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received. Commenters requested the opportunity to comment 
on the three rulemakings contemporaneously, as their views on the 
reporting requirements may be affected by how the reported information 
would be accessed and disclosed (in the access rule) and how it would 
be applied for CDD purposes (in the revised CDD Rule). FinCEN also 
received comments specific to the anticipated access and revised CDD 
rules. Comments in anticipation of the access rule focused on the 
structure of the BOSS, emphasizing the importance of security, 
suggesting specifics on FinCEN's technology, and urging FinCEN to 
verify the information. Commenters also raised points on the mechanism 
by which users would be authorized to access BOI and underlying FinCEN 
ID information, and access specifics for certain users, including a 
handful of comments proposing access to non-authorized users (e.g., 
money services businesses and the Government Accountability Office).
    Comments anticipating the revised CDD rule requested clarification 
on how BOI may or may not be relied upon for CDD purposes and 
discrepancy reporting or verification by financial institutions. 
Comments urged FinCEN to standardize definitions between this final 
rule and the revised CDD rule (including some arguing that the 2016 CDD 
Rule definitions should be maintained). Many comments also discussed 
burden on financial institutions, emphasizing that the revised CDD rule 
should ease, and not cause, burden. Some comments stated that FinCEN 
should address certain of these issues in this final rule.
    Response. While FinCEN recognizes that the three required 
rulemakings are related, the CTA does not require them to be completed 
simultaneously. The CTA includes three separate rulemaking 
provisions,\229\ and this final rule is focused solely on the 
implementation of the reporting requirements, as described in 31 U.S.C. 
5336(a) and (b), rather than

[[Page 59549]]

including issues related to BOI access or revisions to the 2016 CDD 
Rule. Furthermore, the CTA directs FinCEN to promptly publish this 
final rule within a specific timeframe and contemplates subsequent 
rulemakings for access to BOI and revisions to the 2016 CDD Rule within 
different timeframes. In particular, the timeframe set for the 
publication of the 2016 CDD Rule--one year after the effective date of 
this final rule--indicates that Congress expected this final rule to be 
completed first. Proceeding serially in this order also ensures that 
important topics concerning each subject will be thoroughly considered 
and that the public will have ample opportunity to comment at each 
phase.\230\ Commenters generally did not explain with specificity what 
aspects of the reporting rule they believe depend on choices to be made 
in the other two rulemakings. But commenters will nevertheless have 
opportunities to submit any comments they wish to provide in those 
rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4) (instructing Treasury to issue 
regulations related to reporting obligations and FinCEN 
identifiers); 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(3) (instructing Treasury to issue 
regulations concerning access); CTA, Section 6403(d) (instructing 
Treasury to revise the 2016 CDD Rule).
    \230\ Cf. Transportation Div. of the Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, 
Air, Rail & Transportation Workers v. Fed. R.R. Admin., 10 F.4th 
869, 875 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (``We have recognized that, under the 
pragmatic one-step-at-a-time doctrine, agencies have great 
discretion to treat a problem partially and regulate in a piecemeal 
fashion.'' (cleaned up); NTCH v. FCC, 950 F.3d 871, 881 (D.C. Cir. 
2020) (noting that an agency ``need not `resolve massive problems in 
one fell regulatory swoop;' instead, it may `whittle away at them 
over time,''' (quoting Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 
(2007)); Nat'l Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1207 
(D.C. Cir. 1984) (explaining that ```reform may take place one step 
at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems 
most acute to the [regulatory] mind,''' (quoting Williamson v. Lee 
Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 489 (1955)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Congress emphasized the importance of promulgating 
regulations establishing reporting obligations when it established a 
one-year deadline for such regulations.\231\ Reopening this rulemaking 
for further comment would result in additional delay.\232\ The 
commenters who requested this indicated in general that their views 
concerning BOI reporting obligations might change depending upon how 
FinCEN planned to protect and disclose BOI. However, these commenters' 
concerns regarding data security and disclosure are more pertinent to 
other CTA rulemakings and are beyond the scope of this final rule. In 
undertaking those other rulemakings, FinCEN will consider all relevant 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(5).
    \232\ See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 398 (D.C. Cir. 
1981) (noting that an agency's decision not to extend or reopen a 
comment period was justified in part because doing so would have 
resulted in additional delay when Congress had ``put a premium on 
speedy decisionmaking by setting a one year deadline from [a 
statute's] enactment to the rules' promulgation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Severability

    If any of the provisions of this rule, or the application thereof 
to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity 
shall not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to 
other persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the 
invalid provision or application.

V. Regulatory Analysis

    This section contains the final regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
for the rule; it estimates the cost of the BOI reporting requirements 
to the public, among other items. The estimated costs for completing a 
BOI report depend on the complexity of the beneficial ownership 
structure of an entity. FinCEN's burden assessments differ for entities 
with beneficial ownership structures of different complexities. For 
entities with a simple structure (i.e., one beneficial owner, with that 
beneficial owner also being the one company applicant) FinCEN estimates 
that it will cost $85.14 to prepare and submit an initial BOI report. 
This is comparable to (and in some cases less than) the fees that 
states charge for creating a limited liability company, which vary from 
$40 to $500, depending on the state. On the other end of the spectrum, 
FinCEN estimates that it will cost slightly more than $2,600 on average 
for entities with complex beneficial ownership structures (i.e., 8 
beneficial owners and two additional individuals as company applicants) 
to complete an initial filing, of which $2,000 is for professional 
fees. In the RIA (Section V. below), FinCEN estimates that 59 percent 
of reporting companies will have a ``simple structure,'' 36.1 percent 
of reporting companies will have an ``intermediate structure'' (i.e., 
four beneficial owners and a fifth individual as the one company 
applicant), and 4.9 percent of reporting companies will have a 
``complex structure.''
    The aggregate cost of this regulation is reflective of the large 
number of corporations and other entities that are covered in order to 
implement the broad scope of the CTA. FinCEN estimates that there will 
be approximately 32.6 million reporting companies in Year 1, and 5 
million additional reporting companies each year in Years 2-10. Given 
the estimated number of reporting companies, FinCEN estimates that the 
rule will have total estimated costs in the billions of dollars on an 
annual basis. The RIA's time horizon is the first 10 years of the rule, 
during which reporting companies will learn about and become familiar 
with these new requirements. Although not accounted for in the RIA, 
after this initial learning curve FinCEN assesses that the cost to 
reporting companies is likely to decrease.
    While many of the rule's benefits are not currently quantifiable, 
FinCEN assesses that the rule will have a significant positive impact 
and that the benefits justify the costs. The rule will likely improve 
investigations by law enforcement and assist other authorized users in 
a variety of activities. All of this should in turn strengthen national 
security, enhance financial system transparency and integrity, and 
align the U.S. financial system more thoroughly with international 
financial standards.\233\ The RIA includes a discussion of these 
benefits, and this discussion should be kept firmly in mind alongside 
the quantitative discussion of costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ FinCEN anticipates that the forthcoming rulemaking on 
access requirements for BOI will include a detailed discussion about 
the potential cost savings to government agencies that may access 
BOI. While not directly applicable to this RIA, the benefits of 
reporting BOI and accessing BOI are inextricably linked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN has made efforts to calculate the cost of the rule 
realistically, but notes that because the rule is a new requirement 
without direct supporting data, the cost estimates are based on several 
assumptions. FinCEN has described its cost estimates in as detailed a 
manner as possible in part to inform the public about the rule and its 
potential impact on a wide range of businesses, including small 
businesses.
    FinCEN has analyzed the final 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, in 
which there is no general federal beneficial ownership disclosure 
requirement. Thus, any estimated costs and benefits as a result of the 
rule are new relative to maintaining the current framework. It has been 
determined that this regulation is a ``significant regulatory action'' 
and economically significant as defined in section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, FinCEN's 
analysis concluded that the rule will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, pursuant 
to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, FinCEN concluded that the rule 
will result in an expenditure of $165 million or more

[[Page 59550]]

annually by state, local, and Tribal governments or by the private 
sector.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires an assessment of 
mandates that will result in an annual expenditure of $100 million 
or more, adjusted for inflation. The U.S. Bureau of Economic 
Analysis reports the annual value of the gross domestic product 
(GDP) deflator in 1995, the year of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, as 71.823, and as 118.37 in 2021. See U.S. Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, 
available at https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=13#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=13. Thus, the inflation adjusted estimate 
for $100 million is 118.37/71.823 x 100 = $165 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the rule being an economically significant 
regulatory action, FinCEN prepared and made public a preliminary RIA, 
along with an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant 
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, on December 7, 2021.\235\ FinCEN 
received multiple comments about the RIA and the IRFA, which are 
addressed in this section. FinCEN has incorporated additional data 
points, additional cost considerations, and other points raised by 
commenters into the final RIA, which is published in its entirety 
following a narrative response to the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ See 86 FR 69947-69969 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. It has 
been determined that this regulation is an economically significant 
regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 
as amended. Accordingly, this final rule has been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
i. Discussion of Comments to the RIA
a. General Comments
    Many comments to the NPRM stated that the proposed reporting 
requirements are excessively onerous. These include some comments that 
proposed alternatives asserted to be less costly or burdensome. The 
comments summarized and incorporated into the RIA regarding burden are 
those that included quantifiable estimates or discussed the impact on a 
specific segment of the economy, such as small businesses.
    Many comments focused on how the proposed reporting requirements 
might negatively affect small businesses. Multiple comments stated that 
costs to comply with the proposed reporting requirements would hurt 
small businesses during financially difficult times, with several 
pointing to already overwhelming regulatory requirements. One comment 
stated that the additional costs could shut down many businesses, while 
another said it would be ``greedy'' to require that businesses pay for 
the filing. One comment stated that, due to a lack of clarity in the 
proposed rule, requirements are likely to be defined through expensive 
litigation with the government, costs of which could be ruinous for 
small businesses.
    Commenters also raised general concerns with the proposed rule's 
minimization of burden, particularly as such consideration is required 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Responses to specific comments 
related to the NPRM's initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 
are discussed in Section V.B. below.
    Given the NPRM's assessment of the significant economic impact on 
small businesses, one commenter urged FinCEN to ease this burden by 
using the statutory maximum reporting timelines (i.e., implementation 
date, days to file, and days to file a corrected report) and stated 
that Congress allowed for more flexibility than FinCEN proposed on 
these items. Maximum flexibility would ease the burden of the final 
rule, the commenter argued, as would making the Compliance Guide, 
required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, as helpful as possible. Another commenter stated that the 
proposed rule does not provide sufficient justification for why the 
burden of scanning identification documents should fall on small 
businesses. The commenter further stated that rather than decrease the 
burden on small businesses as required by statute, the proposed rule 
would increase burden by requiring disclosure of additional information 
about the business not required by statute, such as business names, 
trade names, addresses, and unique numbers identifying the business. 
One commenter effectively summarized the rest by stating that the 
proposed rule is too complex, overly broad, and does not adhere to 
congressional intent to minimize burden on small businesses.
    FinCEN is sensitive to concerns from small business about having to 
comply with a new set of regulations, and has endeavored to minimize 
unnecessary compliance burdens. As several commenters noted, the CTA 
exhorts FinCEN to ``seek to minimize burden on reporting companies,'' 
\236\ to the extent practicable. At the same time, the statute directs 
FinCEN to ``collect information in the form and manner that is 
reasonably designed to generate a database that is highly useful to 
national intelligence and law enforcement agencies and Federal 
functional regulators.'' \237\ This is a delicate balance. In an effort 
to achieve it, and to comply with applicable statutory requirements, 
FinCEN has not required information beyond that which is essential to 
developing a useful, secure database. FinCEN has also endeavored to 
draft the regulations as clearly as possible, although the issuance of 
public guidance may be appropriate to address specific questions in the 
future. FinCEN anticipates that this will provide greater clarity to 
the regulated community over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ CTA, Section 6402(8)(A).
    \237\ CTA, Section 6402(8)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding reporting timelines, FinCEN has explained why it views 
the rule's deadlines as reasonable, but also adds here that it is 
working to leverage technology and relationships with state, local, and 
Tribal authorities to make expectations clear and reporting processes 
straightforward. The goal is to make it as easy as possible for 
reporting companies of all sizes to comply with reporting requirements 
in the time provided. Commenters highlighted other select portions of 
the proposed rule that could be made less burdensome, such as the 
company applicant definition, beneficial owner definition, reporting 
company definition, reporting requirements related to addresses, and 
updated report requirements. The specifics of such comments are 
summarized in Section III above in connection with the specific 
provisions of the proposed rule that they address. Commenters also 
proposed changes to the rule that were not adopted, as also discussed 
in Section III above. However, the RIA does consider other significant 
alternatives.
    One comment noted that the majority of existing entities do not 
retain certain information about individuals such as beneficial owners 
(i.e., personal documents, driver's licenses, and passports) due to 
serious data security issues, protocols, and guidance they have 
received to delete such information when not needed for business 
purposes. FinCEN does not see its proposed regulations as requiring 
entities to deviate from those data

[[Page 59551]]

retention practices, as there is no requirement in the proposed rules 
to store copies of identification documents once a reporting company 
has reported relevant information to FinCEN.
    One comment focused on non-U.S. residents, stating that the 
proposed rule appears to impose another redundant layer of reporting 
requirements on non-resident American citizens who own small businesses 
and also have a business license in the United States. This comment 
stressed that several legislative measures and federal regulations over 
the years unfairly affect millions of United States citizen taxpayers, 
and any new FinCEN rule should exercise caution in considering both the 
goals and potential negative impacts on working-class Americans living 
abroad. FinCEN has considered statutory goals and potential negative 
impacts and done its best to mitigate the latter for United States 
residents and non-residents alike.
    Finally, FinCEN received a general comment related to the NPRM's 
economic analysis as a whole. One commenter stated that the economic 
analysis ``makes major, major errors'' and is ``objectively and 
demonstrably wrong to a massive degree.'' The specific points raised by 
this commenter are addressed in the summary and analysis in Section 
V.B. below.
b. Cost-Related Comments
    A few comments expressed concern with the estimated cost to comply 
with the proposed reporting rule. One commenter noted that if the 
estimate is accurate, the cost to small businesses will almost match 
the amount appropriated by Congress for FinCEN's budget for fiscal year 
2022. Given the broad population to which the rule applies and the 
requirements it imposes, FinCEN believes the cost estimate methodology 
is appropriate. The overall cost estimate has increased from the NPRM 
given changes made to the analysis, based on comments and updated 
sources of information.
    Commenters noted points regarding the per-entity initial and 
ongoing cost estimates. One commenter stated that FinCEN's proposed 
cost analysis is detailed and thoughtful, and its assumptions appear 
reasonable. The commenter further stated that using the numbers in the 
RIA, the estimated per-entity cost to update beneficial ownership 
information when changes occur is approximately $20, and the vast 
majority of filers (roughly 20 million in any given year) will have no 
filing costs. The commenter stated that these numbers reflect both the 
CTA authors' and FinCEN's successful efforts to minimize the burden on 
filers.
    However, several commenters recommended that the RIA's per-entity 
cost estimate be reassessed. A few commenters noted that the ongoing 
compliance maintenance costs would likely be lower, while other 
commenters stated that both the initial and ongoing costs would likely 
be higher. Several other commenters requested more clarity and/or a 
more accurate estimation of the ongoing costs to small businesses.
    The few commenters that suggested the ongoing compliance 
maintenance costs would most likely be lower referenced data from a 
survey conducted on covered businesses in the United Kingdom (UK) after 
the implementation of its beneficial ownership registry (People with 
Significant Control (or PSC) Register). The commenters indicated that 
the UK study, based on information self-reported by companies, found 
that after a larger first year expense, the annual compliance cost for 
businesses with less than 50 employees dropped to the equivalent of 
about $3-5. The commenters viewed it as reasonable to expect similar 
outcomes in the U.S., where small firms (``mom-and-pop'' enterprises, 
for example) have simple ownership structures that are easy to assess 
and update when changes occur. Two commenters explained that the per-
entity cost estimate for initial compliance stops short of presenting 
information on the ongoing cost of compliance for small businesses. 
These commenters suggested that the final RIA provide estimates of the 
cost over time to reassure small businesses of the low cost of ongoing 
compliance.
    FinCEN concurs that costs for simple beneficial ownership 
structures will be lower than for more complex entities, and has 
incorporated this point into the RIA. FinCEN continues to assess that 
the cost of compliance will be higher than the $3-5 cited in the UK 
study, particularly as U.S. entities learn about the reporting 
requirements in the first year. However, FinCEN concurs that the cost 
of compliance is likely to decrease as the reporting requirements 
become routine over time, and FinCEN will adjust its burden estimates 
accordingly throughout the life cycle of the rule. The RIA aims to 
accurately reflect the burden and costs entities will incur to come 
into compliance with the rule.
    On the other hand, some commenters stated that the per-entity costs 
should be higher. One of these commenters explained that costs would 
include not just physical resources used to create the report, but also 
opportunity costs associated with employees reviewing documents and 
engaging in other compliance activity. Another commenter expressed 
concern that FinCEN miscalculated the burden and costs to smaller 
businesses, including those already in existence that might face 
interruptions in their banking relationships until they file their 
initial beneficial ownership reports with FinCEN. Further, the 
commenter stated that FinCEN's assumption that most small businesses 
are structurally simple ``misses the mark'' on how high administrative 
costs associated with rule compliance could run. Another commenter 
opined that the RIA's cost estimates for private sector filers and 
FinCEN's estimates for designing, building, and maintaining the system 
are both remarkably low. Specifically, the commenter recommended that 
the per-entity cost estimate be reassessed, explaining that identifying 
all possible persons with potentially significant control, getting 
legal advice, and collecting identification documents will take hours 
of time, speculating that FinCEN's estimate was off by a factor of ten. 
These comments are discussed in more detail in Section V.A.ii.e. below, 
and the per-entity cost has been reassessed to account for additional 
burden activities.
    Several other commenters requested more clarity and/or a more 
accurate or complete estimation of the ongoing costs to small 
businesses. Another commenter indicated that it is very difficult to 
estimate cost for small businesses, as the rule is still unclear as to 
how this information will be collected, and that a more accurate 
estimation could be provided once the method of data collection is 
known and terms are more clearly defined. In response, FinCEN has 
updated the RIA's organization to increase clarity and added a detailed 
section discussing the estimated burdens and costs associated with the 
steps of filing initial and updated BOI reports.
    Commenters raised a number of other cost considerations, including 
additional costs that should be considered and suggestions regarding 
estimates for the total number of entities, the number of entities that 
meet certain exemptions, and time burdens associated with the rule. 
Entity estimates have been updated, as described in Section V.A.ii.e. 
below. In the case of costs that were not initially accounted for in 
the RIA, but that are identified by commenters and are relevant to the 
final rule, FinCEN has revised portions of the RIA to incorporate them.

[[Page 59552]]

    The following comments relate to the estimated number of reporting 
companies.
    Total entity estimates. Some commenters raised concerns with FinCEN 
relying on public 2018 survey data from the International Association 
of Commercial Administrators (IACA) to estimate the total number of 
U.S. entities. Specific concerns included that the information is dated 
and only represents a small percentage of U.S. jurisdictions. These 
commenters stated that the RIA likely underestimated the number of 
affected entities, and therefore misjudged anticipated costs. Another 
comment suggested that FinCEN reach out to IACA regarding FinCEN's 
interpretation of their data. Other comments raised concerns with the 
RIA's assumption that the number of new entities each year equals the 
number of dissolved entities. A commenter suggested that this 
assumption is incorrect, and pointed out that the annual creation of 
domestic (U.S.) business entities in North Carolina has grown from 
47,000 in 2011 to 163,100 in 2021, and that creations exceed 
destructions in the jurisdiction by over 40 percent in every year after 
2013. Moreover, the rate and raw number of entities created has 
increased greatly since 2015. One comment stated that most 
jurisdictions have seen significant increases in the number of business 
entities formed in the last two years. In a sampling of states, 
increases ranged from 50 to 60 percent since 2018.
    In response to these comments, FinCEN reviewed additional data 
sources and refreshed the analysis with the most up-to-date IACA data 
publicly available. This new IACA data included information for 2018, 
2019, and 2020, which allowed FinCEN to estimate a growth factor to 
account for year-over-year percent increase in entities. FinCEN has 
updated the analysis to include an annualized average growth assumption 
for entity creations. For purpose of the analysis, FinCEN chooses to 
use a simple annualized average growth rate factor for entity formation 
using IACA data.
    A few commenters proposed alternative data sources to consider. One 
commenter pointed to 2020 data published by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) indicating that 99.9 percent of U.S. businesses 
are small businesses and 81 percent of those have no employees. The 
commenter argues that if a large percentage of these businesses are 
single-owner corporations or single-member LLCs, identifying beneficial 
owners will impose a near zero cost for most U.S. businesses. The same 
comment also suggested that FinCEN coordinate access to Census Bureau 
Business Register data on U.S. businesses jointly owned by spouses in 
order to estimate the number of these businesses, which similarly would 
be able to easily identify their beneficial owners at virtually no 
cost, in the commenter's estimation. FinCEN reviewed these suggestions 
and incorporated three additional public data sources from the U.S. 
Census Bureau into the RIA. The additional data sources supported 
FinCEN's approach and findings with regard to the total domestic entity 
estimate. Additionally, part of FinCEN's updated approach in the RIA is 
to identify the likely distribution of reporting companies' beneficial 
ownership structure complexity. The approach assumes that a majority of 
reporting companies will have simple beneficial ownership structures to 
report. FinCEN concludes that such entities would still bear a cost to 
comply with the rule but assesses that these costs would be lower for 
simple beneficial ownership structures.
    Another commenter stated that the RIA's reporting company estimate 
appears to include sole proprietorships, even though they are unlikely 
to meet the reporting company definition. The comment pointed to the 
National Small Business Association's estimate that 12 percent of small 
businesses (which account for 99.9 percent of all businesses in the 
U.S.) are sole proprietorships, which amounts to a little over 3 
million businesses. The commenter states that FinCEN should either 
reduce its overall cost estimates or acknowledge that they very likely 
overstated the aggregate cost to businesses. Although the underlying 
data source FinCEN relies upon for total entity estimates does not 
specify that it includes sole proprietorships, FinCEN acknowledges that 
there are likely some number of sole proprietorships included in the 
reporting company estimate. Nonetheless, FinCEN maintains its 
conservative approach to total cost estimation. Furthermore, FinCEN is 
unaware of a methodology to remove sole proprietorships without also 
removing potential single-owner LLCs and other similar entities that 
meet the definition of a reporting company.
    Other alternative data sources included statistics that states 
provided in comments. As of December 31, 2021, for example, Michigan 
had 1,051,163 active entities on record, 992,574 of which were domestic 
Michigan entities. North Carolina had over 1,810,000 registered 
entities as of 2021, 843,300 of which were entities in good standing 
(neither permanently dissolved nor in temporary administrative 
dissolution status).\238\ North Carolina and Michigan were reporting 
jurisdictions in the updated IACA data used for the total domestic 
entity estimate. Using the growth factor established, FinCEN projected 
the total domestic entity estimates of 871,681 and 820,561 for 2024 in 
Michigan and North Carolina, respectively. Given the likelihood that 
data provided by these two comments includes non-reporting companies 
(i.e., exempt entities), FinCEN believes that the statistics from these 
comments further demonstrate the approach's relative accuracy and 
reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ FinCEN assumes that these statistics refer to entities 
created in those respective states. While this assumption is not 
clarified in the Michigan comment, it is supported by a statement in 
the North Carolina comment that ``unless stated otherwise, all 
figures represent North Carolina domiciled entities only and do not 
reflect registrations with the Department of entities formed in 
other states or foreign countries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, multiple comments made reference to how many businesses or 
small businesses would be affected by the rule but did not provide 
sources for these statements. Such comments included claims such as 
there would be compliance costs for ``over 12 million tiny businesses'' 
and obligations on tens of millions of businesses. These statements 
generally support FinCEN's conclusion that tens of millions of 
businesses, most of which are likely to be small, will be affected by 
the rule.
    Overall, concerns raised by commenters were addressed by numerous 
updates to the RIA. Specifically, FinCEN used the most up-to-date IACA 
dataset, established a growth factor, reviewed additional data sources 
from the U.S. Census Bureau, and applied a distribution of reporting 
companies' beneficial ownership structure complexity.
    Entity lifespan. A commenter stated that FinCEN underestimated the 
length of time that entities will have ongoing update obligations, 
citing to state data that demonstrate that 50 percent of entities in 
North Carolina survive their first six years, and more than 40 percent 
remain in existence beyond their tenth year. FinCEN did not make any 
assumptions in the NPRM's analysis about the lifespan of an entity and 
is not making any such assumption in the final analysis. The 10-year 
horizon referenced in the NPRM was for the present value calculation to 
discount the near-term expected annual impact into today's dollar 
value. The rule's impact was not estimated into perpetuity but instead 
at a 10-year horizon, and captures the bulk of the near-term impact of 
the rule. Because

[[Page 59553]]

FinCEN does not incorporate an assumption for entity lifespan, and 
therefore, does not net out any cost savings from entity dissolutions 
that may occur within that 10-year present value estimation period, 
FinCEN's estimates will overestimate the overall impact within the 10-
year period.
    Trusts. In the RIA, FinCEN asked for comments on data sources to 
determine the total number of trusts and what portion of the total are 
created or registered with a secretary of state or similar office. One 
commenter noted that trusts are neither created nor registered with the 
Corporations Division in Michigan. Given this, FinCEN has not changed 
the approach to trusts in the RIA. The reporting company estimate 
relies on an updated (2021) IACA survey that provides ``the number of 
entities registered . . . in responding jurisdictions.'' \239\ FinCEN 
therefore assesses that if any trusts are included in the data, they 
would have been required to register with a secretary of state or 
similar office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ FinCEN accessed this description by selecting ``2021 
International Business Registers Report'', available at https://www.iaca.org/ibrs-survey/. Then, FinCEN selected ``BD--Registered 
Entities'' to view the description of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exempt insurance companies estimate. One commenter stated that the 
NPRM's estimate of insurance companies could be higher; however, FinCEN 
assesses that this depends on facts and circumstances. For example, a 
determination on whether a particular captive insurance company meets 
the insurance company definition depends on factors like the company's 
structure and business activity. FinCEN emphasizes that the sources 
used for the exemption estimates should not be viewed as encompassing 
all entities that may be captured under the exemption.
    The comment further notes that the NPRM omits any count of exempt 
insurance companies from Table 2, which summarized FinCEN's estimate of 
the number of entities in each of 22 exempt categories that were 
subtracted from the total entity estimate developed in the NPRM. FinCEN 
did not subtract insurance companies from the total entity estimate in 
the NPRM based on an assumption that such entities would not have been 
counted in the underlying data; however FinCEN does not include this 
assumption in the final RIA. Finally, the comment disagreed with the 
statement in the NPRM that there is likely overlap between insurance 
companies and state-licensed insurance producers. FinCEN concurs with 
the commenter that there is likely little overlap between the two 
exemptions, and has revised the RIA accordingly.
    Exempt tax-exempt entities estimate. A commenter raised concerns 
with the estimate of these entities in the NPRM, which was based on 
2018 IACA survey data and totaled approximately 2.8 million. The 
commenter, North Carolina's secretary of state, asserted that many 
entities formed as nonprofits under North Carolina law (144,700, or 17 
percent) will not satisfy the criteria for the tax-exempt entity 
exemption because such entities are neither a 501(c) nor a 527 entity 
under federal law, and were therefore not properly accounted for in the 
RIA. More specifically, under North Carolina law, such entities are not 
required to obtain federal tax-exempt status from the IRS, and many are 
either unqualified for such status or otherwise choose not to obtain 
federally exempt status. Therefore, the commenter contends that FinCEN 
overestimated the number of entities that will qualify for this 
exemption and therefore underestimated the costs.
    In light of this comment, FinCEN sought to more accurately reflect 
the number of entities with federal tax-exempt status, taking into 
account that not all nonprofits are tax-exempt at the federal level. As 
shown in the RIA, the estimate for this category has decreased to 
approximately 2.4 million entities.
    Exempt inactive entities estimate. A commenter suggested that 
entities considered ``inactive'' in state registries should be included 
in the reporting company estimate (and not excluded). This commenter, 
North Carolina's secretary of state, noted that it is probable that 
many dissolved entities in North Carolina will have reporting 
obligations because the vast majority of company dissolutions in that 
state are temporary and do not prevent a dissolved entity from 
conducting business. Of the over 1,810,000 registered entities in North 
Carolina, only 13 percent are permanently dissolved. Another 40 percent 
are in temporary administrative dissolution status, with another 46 
percent entities in good standing.\240\ Over the past three years, 
44,000 entities resolved their temporary administrative dissolution and 
were reinstated, representing about 34 percent of the administrative 
dissolutions filed during that same three year period. The commenter 
indicated they do not have information to reliably estimate what 
percentage of the administratively dissolved entities are, in fact, no 
longer actively engaged in business. The commenter suspects that the 
number may range from 60 to 70 percent of all administratively 
dissolved entities. The commenter recommended that if FinCEN takes the 
position that administratively dissolved entities are not exempt as 
reporting companies, it should update its RIA to calculate the costs of 
compliance for the approximately 727,000 North Carolina entities that 
are in temporary administrative dissolution status but able to conduct 
business, as well as 239,000 permanently dissolved North Carolina 
entities that cannot be confirmed to have concluded winding up 
business. The comment notes that these costs include approximately 
$966,000 (approximately $1 per entity) in unfunded mandates to North 
Carolina associated with notifying entities about the reporting 
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ Another commenter provided estimates on the number of 
inactive companies in a state, indicating that as of December 31, 
2021, Michigan had 1,583,291 inactive entities on record. Domestic, 
Michigan entities account for 1,485,897 of the inactive entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN does not estimate a number of entities that fall under the 
inactive entity exemption given the lack of data regarding entities 
that will meet the exemption's criteria. That underlying data source 
for the total entity estimates contains statistics reported by the 
states to IACA. If the states reported temporarily or permanently 
dissolved registered entities in the counts to IACA, such entities are 
included in FinCEN's analysis. The reporting company estimate increased 
from the NPRM, and the estimate is corroborated by other sources. 
FinCEN addresses comments related to indirect state costs in the RIA as 
well.
    The following comments relate to additional costs or burdens that 
should be considered in the RIA.
    Estimated time burdens for filing reports. A few commenters stated 
that the estimated time burden of 70 minutes for filing initial reports 
was unrealistically low given the complexity of the requirements. One 
comment stated that the 20 minute allotment to read the form and 
understand the requirement from the initial report time estimate should 
be increased to no fewer than 4.5 hours per report. This commenter 
asserted that FinCEN should estimate three hours for one senior 
official to read the final rule, one hour for one senior official to 
take the necessary steps to determine whether the entity is a reporting 
company, and one half-hour for a second senior official to consider the 
analysis and concur. The commenter stated that based on the NPRM's page 
length, the final rule is likely to be at least 180 pages long, 
supporting their three hour estimate for a preliminary reading (i.e., 
one page per minute). The comment cautioned that to the extent the 
form, its instruction, and

[[Page 59554]]

any accompanying guidance released exceeds 20 pages, FinCEN should 
account for this increased complexity under this assumption. 
Accordingly, FinCEN has increased this time estimatein the RIA.
    In response to the RIA's assumption of 30 minutes to identify and 
collect information about beneficial owners and company applicants as 
part of the initial report time estimate, the commenter shared that 
FinCEN should estimate that a senior official will spend one hour, and 
an ordinary employee will spend two hours, per entity determining its 
beneficial ownership. FinCEN has adjusted this time estimate in the RIA 
by different amounts depending on the complexity of beneficial 
ownership structure.
    Commenters argued that burdens related to locating company 
applicants, particularly for companies created years ago, should be 
accounted for in the RIA. One comment stated that to comply with the 
proposed reporting requirements, thousands if not millions of small or 
medium businesses will be forced to spend an inordinate amount of time 
searching for the person who submitted their formation filing. This 
will cause them to incur costs and time away from their businesses, a 
burden not anticipated by the RIA. Given that the final rule removes 
the requirement for existing entities to report company applicants, 
this burden is not included in the RIA. However, FinCEN considers an 
alternative scenario in which this activity is required.
    In addition, a commenter stated that the Paperwork Reduction Act 
may require consideration of additional burden activities beyond those 
noted by FinCEN in the 70-minute time period for filing initial 
reports. Specifically, the comment stated that some burdens do not 
appear to have been addressed in the NPRM, including having to acquire, 
install, and use technology and systems to file requisite reports, as 
well as reviewing collected information. References to this comment are 
included in the time burden estimates for initial and updated BOI 
reports.
    One commenter states that the NPRM's assumption (based on 
underlying data from the UK) that 87 percent of reports will include 
one or two beneficial owners is impossible given the proposed 
definition of beneficial owner. The commenter assesses that the 
proposed definition would result in at least three beneficial owners 
(President/CEO, Treasurer/CFO, and corporate secretary) in addition to 
any 25 percent or more owners. Including any other senior officer and 
person that has ``substantial influence over important matters'' would 
result in reporting companies generally having at least four or five 
and probably more likely 15 to 25 beneficial owners. The comment states 
that the estimates provided by FinCEN in the RIA are off by at least 
400 percent and quite likely several times that, and therefore it is 
``impossible'' that the cost estimates are correct. FinCEN considered 
this comment and included a different estimate of the number of 
beneficial owners per report in the RIA. However, FinCEN continues to 
assume that the majority of reporting companies will have a simple 
reporting structure, such as an LLC which has a single owner and no 
other beneficial owners.
    Estimated hourly wage. A few commenters stated that FinCEN's 
estimated hourly wage rate of $38.44 per hour was unrealistically low. 
One commenter criticized FinCEN's decision to tether the estimated wage 
rate for each reporting requirement to the mean hourly wage rate for 
all employees. The comment asserted that the FinCEN filing process is 
going to be undertaken by senior management or highly paid 
professionals, as opposed to ordinary employees. The comment concluded 
that the cost per hour is going to be two to three times the figure 
estimated by FinCEN. Similarly, one comment estimated the average cost 
to be $500 per hour--significantly higher than FinCEN's estimate.
    Another commenter echoed this sentiment, noting that it would be 
unlikely that an ordinary employee would be the sole person called 
upon, without supervision, to understand the FinCEN filing requirement 
and make filing decisions on behalf of an entity. The comment asserted 
that the work associated with FinCEN's filing requirement would require 
a senior officer or equivalent, and likely demand the services of a 
professional. The comment concluded that a more accurate cost estimate 
would be at least twice the amount estimated by FinCEN. Similarly, 
another commenter argued that the loaded wage rate is unreasonably low 
because the vast majority of small businesses will rely on attorneys 
and/or accountants to prepare their initial filings. The comment 
concluded that the median hourly Certified Public Accountant (CPA) rate 
in the U.S. is $210/hour, and after considering personnel time plus 
professional time, the actual costs of complying with initial 
beneficial ownership reporting requirements would likely be at least 
$600 per initial beneficial ownership filing.
    The wage rate is adjusted in the RIA to reflect some of this 
feedback. This has increased the estimated hourly wage rate.
    Costs of professional expertise. Multiple comments stated that the 
RIA should have included in its cost estimate the costs to reporting 
companies, and particularly small businesses, of hiring professional 
experts to help them understand and comply with the rule. Commenters 
gave examples of lawyers, accountants (many comments cited CPAs), and 
U.S. tax preparers as professionals that companies would likely consult 
to understand the reporting company definition, identify beneficial 
owners pursuant to the rule's definition and their business structure, 
and prepare initial and updated reports, among other compliance steps. 
One commenter noted having polled attorneys who represent early stage 
and startup companies, and reported that the attorneys expected to 
spend a substantial amount of time with clients, on an ongoing and 
continuous basis, regarding the proposed rule and its frequent update 
requirements. Commenters noted that the penalties for violating the 
rule's reporting requirements create an incentive to obtain this 
expertise.
    A commenter noted, in a sentiment echoed by others, that small 
businesses cannot afford attorneys, accountants, and clerks, and will 
instead rely on do-it-yourself compliance. However, other commenters 
stated that small businesses were likely to hire external expertise. 
One comment anticipated that the vast majority of small business owners 
will rely on outside professionals, and another stated that entities 
are more likely than not to require the help of a professional. A 
comment stated it was highly likely that professionals will add 
guidance on complying with the rule to their current service offerings, 
but the commenter hoped that financial institutions would not be 
expected to provide guidance. A commenter noted that paying for 
external legal counsel to comply with the requirements would impose a 
``new cost on small businesses at a time when they are trying to 
recover from two years of pandemic-imposed recession, and would not be 
in the public interest.''
    Regarding potential cost estimates for hiring this expertise, one 
comment noted having been quoted ``1000s'' (of dollars, presumably) by 
CPAs to fill out the BOI report. Another comment stated that FinCEN 
should estimate one hour of outside professional review per document 
(with one document per entity, and including study of the entity's 
ownership and control structure) plus client consultation time,

[[Page 59555]]

for a total of two hours of professional time spent per entity. The 
comment states that this accounts for the expectation that some 
entities will require numerous professional hours due to complicated 
ownership and control structures (increasing the cost estimate per 
entity), while some entities will share a professional and thus may 
share client consultation time (decreasing the cost per entity).\241\ 
One comment offered that between three and five hours for the initial 
report would be more realistic, as many reporting companies will need 
time for exchanges between themselves and outside professionals to 
ensure they understand applicable requirements and file reports 
correctly. A comment proposed the cost of $400 per hour for retaining 
outside professionals, based on a recent SEC PRA analysis.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ The commenter caveated that this economies of scale may 
not occur to the extent that ownership and control structures vary 
among related entities.
    \242\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Holding Foreign 
Companies Accountable Act Disclosure, Release No. 34-93701 (Dec. 2, 
2021), p. 56, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2021/34-93701.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the many points raised by commenters on this topic, FinCEN 
assessed and included a cost for hiring professionals to comply with 
the requirements in the RIA.
    Costs of data security. A couple of commenters noted that the RIA 
failed to consider the substantial harms that could be experienced by 
reporting companies, beneficial owners, and company applicants should 
the images of identifying documents required to be submitted under the 
rule not be kept secure by either FinCEN or by those who collect the 
images for submission to FinCEN. Commenters explained that many, if not 
most, small businesses that will comprise the bulk of reporting 
companies will lack the security and privacy tools necessary to protect 
their stored copies of the imaged documents they must collect from 
their beneficial owners and company applicants. Those businesses will 
be vulnerable to hacking, spoofing, and malware attacks that could 
result in the disclosure of the imaged documents and their use for 
criminal purposes. The law firms and service companies that assist in 
business formations likewise will face elevated risk if they assist 
their clients with submission of their reports and therefore begin to 
accumulate electronic images of the required forms of identification.
    Another commenter noted that while FinCEN does an admirable job 
estimating the regulatory cost of the paperwork burden associated with 
the proposed regulations, it does not estimate, or even acknowledge, 
that through the process of FinCEN collecting personally identifiable 
information from companies' beneficial owners, hundreds if not 
thousands of individuals will be subject to identity theft. The 
commenter further states that FinCEN should publicly commit to pay for 
credit monitoring and identity theft protections for any victims of 
unauthorized BOI disclosure, either through an unauthorized data 
breach, or through unauthorized disclosure of BOI from an agent or 
employee of the government. In response to these comments, a discussion 
of data security costs was added to the RIA.
    Costs to exempt entities. One comment stated that the burden to 
exempt entities of having to understand the reporting requirement and 
relevant exemptions should be included. The commenter stated that the 
decision to report must be made not just by each reporting company but 
also by exempt entities. Citing the reporting violation penalties and 
``willful'' standard, the comment stated FinCEN will not be sympathetic 
to non-filing entities that do not read or analyze the final rule or 
reporting form prior to deciding not to file. The comment concluded by 
stating that on this basis, the cost to read and understand the final 
rule will be borne by all 30 million entities that FinCEN estimates 
exist in the United States. This cost consideration is discussed in the 
RIA, but the RIA does not quantify a specific cost estimate for such 
activity for the reasons stated therein.
    Costs of tracking updated information. Other comments asserted that 
the burden estimate does not take into account the time and effort 
required by reporting companies to track beneficial ownership changes 
in compliance with the reporting requirements. One commenter argued 
that if reporting companies are required to update any of their 
beneficial ownership information within 30 days of any change, FinCEN 
should account for monthly or recurring review of such information. 
This cost consideration is discussed in the RIA, but the RIA does not 
quantify a specific cost estimate for such activity for the reasons 
stated therein.
    Cost of government audits. One commenter stated that it is unclear 
if the estimated FinCEN costs include costs associated with audits 
required by the CTA. Another commenter noted that the CTA imposes 
years-long audit obligations on Treasury, the Treasury Inspector 
General (IG), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to 
evaluate registry operations, examine exempt entities, assess state 
incorporation practices, and determine whether additional entities 
should disclose their beneficial owners. The comment stated that given 
the RIA's magnitude of estimated entity counts, the only way effective 
audits can take place is if the registry produces automated reports to 
auditors. In addition, the commenter states that auditors will need to 
work directly with FinCEN as well as state and Tribal agencies to 
ensure the auditors are using reliable data and effective audit 
procedures. The commenter stated that such automated data reports and 
auditing activities should be an explicit part of the overall cost 
benefit analysis. FinCEN does not dispute that there may be costs 
associated with all of these activities, but FinCEN assesses that such 
activities are outside of the scope of this rule. The costs of the 
CTA's required audits and studies therefore are not estimated herein.
    The following comments refer to the RIA's discussion of costs to 
state, local, and Tribal authorities, costs to FinCEN, and potential 
costs to the government and third parties in identifying noncompliance 
with the reporting requirements.
    Costs to State, local, and Tribal authorities. Comments from state, 
local, and Tribal authorities explained that if secretaries of states 
and other similar offices were required to provide notice of the 
reporting obligations and a copy of, or internet link to, FinCEN's BOI 
reporting form, this would result in a significant cost and substantial 
increase in duties to such offices. Particularly, commenters noted that 
these offices will likely only have a mailing address for the 
registered agent of a business entity and that the time and cost of 
mailing paper notices is significant. Commenters also raised concerns 
that filing offices would have no way to determine which entities are 
reporting companies that should receive such notices and that the 
action of sending such notice would result in entities perceiving the 
requirement as a state-level regulation. Commenters raised additional 
concerns that state, local, and Tribal authorities would have 
expenditures beyond providing notice. Commenters stated that the 
potential future responsibilities of such offices related to the CTA 
remain unaddressed. Commenters anticipated that customer service agents 
at filing offices will spend a considerable amount of additional time 
responding to CTA compliance questions, and that additional staff will 
be needed. Another commenter noted that filing office staff cannot 
provide legal advice and will not be able to

[[Page 59556]]

answer such inquiries, which will likely lead to frustration. The 
commenter also noted that receiving calls related to the CTA will 
impose costs on filing offices even if such calls are redirected to 
FinCEN.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ In addition, one commenter stated that filing offices 
would spend time and resources researching information about company 
applicants given the proposed rule's requirement that existing 
entities report company applicant information, which the commenter 
stated was unmanageable and would require an estimated over 22,500 
staff days to search paper records. However, this cost is not 
applicable to the rule given that company applicant reporting for 
existing entities is no longer required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple state authorities commented that the costs associated with 
the rule would result in unfunded mandates. While some commenters noted 
that FinCEN anticipated indirect costs to such authorities in the RIA, 
comments suggested that these costs were substantially underestimated. 
One commenter stated that costs could exceed $1.34 million for 
notifications to entities and responses to entities' inquiries.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ The commenter separately estimated $232,000 to notify and 
respond to corporate entities and $1,111,000 to notify and respond 
to administratively dissolved, permanently dissolved, and nonprofit 
entities that the commenter stated were underestimated in the NPRM's 
reporting company estimate. FinCEN has addressed the comments 
related to the reporting company estimates separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To minimize these costs and burdens, commenters proposed that 
FinCEN should do the following:

--Provide dedicated support to relieve the states
--Provide a mechanism for reimbursing the states for these substantial 
costs
--Provide dedicated customer service for applicants, reporting 
companies, and beneficial owners, such as a customer service call 
center
--Develop an online wizard to assist businesses in determining filing 
requirements without assistance
--Not expect secretaries of state to change their business registry 
systems or databases
--Not expect secretaries of state to make any legislative changes
--Limit offices' exposure by adding a link to a FinCEN website on 
secretaries of states' websites
--Not require additional mailings by secretaries of state
--Reconsider the scope of the proposed rule as it relates to 
obligations of dissolved entities, preexisting companies, and 
obligations to report company applicant information

    FinCEN appreciates these suggestions, and will continue to review 
the suggestions in light of the cost estimates commenters provided. 
FinCEN is sensitive to the concerns articulated by these commenters, 
particularly those related to cost, and notes that the rule does not 
impose direct costs on state, local, and Tribal governments. Moreover, 
consistent with the requirements of the CTA,\245\ FinCEN intends to 
coordinate closely with state, local, and Tribal authorities on the 
implementation of the rule and efforts to provide notice of the 
reporting requirement. A discussion on certain indirect costs to state, 
local, and Tribal authorities is included in the costs section of the 
RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs to FinCEN. A commenter stated that there was no explanation 
or underlying information about what is encompassed in the NPRM's 
estimates of costs to FinCEN. The commenter raised that the proposed 
rule did not mention whether FinCEN plans to use the Beneficial 
Ownership Data Standard (BODS) \246\ as a basis for developing the 
Beneficial Ownership Secure System (BOSS). The commenter stated that 
the use of the BODS could potentially save millions of taxpayer dollars 
in U.S. database development costs. The commenter stated that at a 
minimum, the RIA should make clear to what extent FinCEN plans to take 
advantage of the BODS as an established guide for collecting and 
structuring beneficial ownership data. Additionally, the comment noted 
that the proposed rule did not describe any of the BOSS's expected 
features or the extent to which estimated software costs already 
include any of the associated expenses. The comment included examples 
of such features. In response, FinCEN notes that FinCEN's IT 
development included outreach on existing beneficial ownership models, 
to include BODS. A description of what the estimated IT costs to FinCEN 
encompass is included below; however, additional discussion of database 
functionality and access is expected in forthcoming BOI access 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ The BODS is an open data standard for beneficial ownership 
registries designed by OpenOwnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter noted that the cost of developing and building 
the BSA database in 2010-2014 was in excess of $100 million, and costs 
approximately $27 million per year to operate. The commenter stated 
that the BOSS will cost at least that much in 2022-2025 dollars. As 
noted in the RIA, FinCEN anticipates that the BOSS will build upon 
existing BSA infrastructure to the extent possible; however, cost 
estimates have been increased due to its complexity. An additional 
comment stated FinCEN's cost estimates must include the provision of 
adequate resources to partner with and support state, local, and Tribal 
jurisdictions. These should include funding for materials (e.g., fact 
sheets, FAQs), for the availability of FinCEN domestic liaisons for 
relevant jurisdictions, and for other support to ensure seamless 
implementation. Such activity is accounted for in the non-IT FinCEN 
cost estimates included in the RIA.
    Potential costs from identifying noncompliance. The NPRM discussed 
that FinCEN and other government agencies may incur costs in enforcing 
compliance with the regulation, and noted that FinCEN plans to identify 
noncompliance with BOI reporting requirements by leveraging a variety 
of data sources. FinCEN requested comment on what external data sources 
would be appropriate for FinCEN to leverage in identifying 
noncompliance with the BOI reporting requirements and what potential 
costs may be incurred by third parties.
    One commenter, a financial institution, stated that financial 
institutions are likely one of the best sources of data for identifying 
noncompliance with the proposed rule. The commenter provided the 
example that every time a financial institution searches or makes a 
request to the BOSS, a lack of confirming data would be evidence of an 
entity's noncompliance. However, the commenter strongly urged FinCEN to 
not outsource noncompliance detection to financial institutions that 
already struggle under the weight of helping regulators prevent and 
solve crime. Doing so, the commenter argued, would increase already 
significant costs and reduce efficiencies by requiring financial 
institutions to assist and counsel customers to meet the proposed 
rule's requirements.
    Two commenters identified government data sources that could be 
cross-referenced to identify noncompliance. One commenter indicated 
that data lists of corporations and limited liability companies, 
domestic and foreign, that have filed or registered with a specific 
secretary of state office could be generated, which could be leveraged 
to cross-check for noncompliance. Another commenter indicated that 
FinCEN could cross-reference IRS filings for certain entities. However, 
the commenter, an attorney, explained that professional experience 
indicated that there is significant noncompliance in reporting foreign 
ownership of U.S. disregarded entities to the IRS.
    In response to the NPRM's question on this topic, a state authority

[[Page 59557]]

commented that the state would incur costs if the proposed rule 
required it to change its existing database or existing technical 
processes. The comment did not describe what changes would be required 
for identification of noncompliance or potential cost estimates.
    Another commenter suggested that FinCEN establish an online tip 
site, similar to those states use to facilitate reporting of unlawful 
employment practices, to gather information that can be cross-matched 
with any beneficial ownership and company information that has been 
filed. The comment suggested that FinCEN inquire with those states that 
have such tip sites on the cost of establishing a similar site.
    FinCEN does not include cost estimates related to identifying 
noncompliance with the reporting rule in the RIA given that the 
responsive comments did not include cost estimates for such activity. 
While commenters provided input on potential avenues that could (or 
should not) be considered for identifying noncompliance, it is unknown 
at this time whether FinCEN is likely to rely on any such avenue. Such 
specifics will likely vary with the compliance matter. Therefore, a 
separate estimate of this activity is not included in the RIA; however, 
the RIA does discuss costs associated with compliance and enforcement 
efforts.
c. Benefits-Related Comments
    FinCEN did not receive comments that specifically addressed the 
qualitative discussion of benefits from the reporting requirements in 
the RIA. A number of comments discussed the potential benefit the BOI 
database could provide to financial institutions in the context of CDD 
requirements. One such comment stated that the only way to provide a 
benefit that justifies the cost of complying with the requirement is to 
allow the BOI system data to satisfy financial institution CDD or other 
reporting requirements. FinCEN will consider this perspective as it 
revises the 2016 CDD Rule in accordance with CTA requirements. Also, 
commenters discussed the benefits of specific elements of the reporting 
rule; such comments are summarized in the preamble.
d. Comments on Other Topics
    Comments also covered other topics pertaining to the RIA. 
Specifically, commenters focused on a proposed alternative scenario, 
estimates for individuals applying for FinCEN identifiers, and 
potential chilling effects on incorporation practices.
    Alternative scenario of indirectly collecting BOI. The NPRM 
included an alternative scenario in which a reporting company would 
submit its BOI to FinCEN indirectly through a designated jurisdictional 
authority at the state or Tribal level. The RIA noted that FinCEN 
decided not to propose this alternative in its proposed rule due to 
multiple concerns that commenters raised in response to the ANPRM. 
However, FinCEN noted that it 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 requested comment on this subject. The NPRM also included a 
question on whether reporting companies would prefer to file BOI via 
state or Tribal governments rather than directly with FinCEN.
    A few commenters to the NPRM stated that partnering with state and 
Tribal governments, or repurposing information filed with such 
authorities, would be more efficient and less costly for reporting 
companies than requiring reporting companies to file BOI directly with 
FinCEN. A commenter suggested that FinCEN require certain states to 
include BOI reporting as part of their formation and annual filing 
requirements. Another commenter noted that FinCEN's best opportunity to 
minimize small business compliance costs is to integrate the FinCEN 
filing as seamlessly as possible into existing state-level 
incorporation processes, and that FinCEN should reflect projected costs 
of material and personnel to do so in the cost estimates.
    In contrast, one comment stated that the proposed rule correctly 
rejected this alternative of reporting companies submitting BOI 
indirectly to FinCEN through a designated jurisdictional authority at 
the state or Tribal level. Two comments from state authorities 
questioned why FinCEN asked whether reporting companies would prefer to 
file BOI with states or FinCEN. One of these commenters stated that 
this should have no impact on the administration of the CTA or the 
final rule, and that the CTA explicitly requires reporting companies to 
submit BOI to FinCEN. The other reiterated that the law requires that 
reporting companies submit reports to FinCEN.
    Other commenters emphasized the importance of partnership with 
state and Tribal authorities in implementing the CTA. However, one 
state authority noted that this should be limited to notifying 
individuals about the requirement. That commenter opposed any approach 
that would require states to remit information to FinCEN. Such an 
approach, the commenter argued, would create inconsistent information 
across the United States and impose costly administrative challenges in 
processing and remitting the information.
    As noted in the RIA's alternative scenario discussion, FinCEN 
intends to work closely with relevant state, local, and Tribal 
authorities to minimize burdens on all stakeholders to the extent 
practicable in the ongoing CTA implementation process.
    FinCEN identifier estimates. One commenter stated that the RIA's 
reasoning for why an individual may apply for a FinCEN identifier is a 
misreading of the CTA, explaining that no statutory language authorizes 
FinCEN to construct a regulation to help beneficial owners conceal 
their identities from reporting companies. The commenter also stated 
that the proposed rule fails to make clear that entities seeking to 
obtain a FinCEN identifier must first disclose their beneficial owners 
to FinCEN, and that all parties with authorized access to the BOI 
database can promptly access the identifying information for each 
person assigned a FinCEN identifier. The commenter also observed that 
FinCEN's estimate of individuals who would apply for a FinCEN 
identifier, while seemingly modest compared to the total number of 25 
million initial reporting companies in the NPRM, is still a large 
dataset. This commenter believes this estimate is artificially low 
because it does not take into account the many entities that may also 
apply for a FinCEN identifier. Further, the commenter stated that the 
number of entities that utilize FinCEN identifiers may be significantly 
more than the number of individuals that seek FinCEN identifiers. Still 
another factor is that, because the FinCEN identifier applicants are 
likely to be individuals or entities using complex ownership 
structures, the data itself may be difficult to parse for accurate 
insights. The large numbers and complex data make it impractical to 
expect database auditors to manually track or analyze the FinCEN 
identifier data.
    FinCEN has updated the relevant descriptions and estimates of 
individuals applying for a FinCEN identifier in the RIA to be 
consistent with changes to the final rule. FinCEN assumes that costs 
associated with entities applying for and updating information related 
to a FinCEN identifier are accounted for in the estimates related to 
initial and updated BOI reports. This is because entities would perform 
such functions related to their FinCEN identifier through the BOI 
report form.

[[Page 59558]]

    Chilling effects on incorporation practices. A few commenters 
expressed concern with the proposed rule's potential chilling effect on 
new business formation. One commenter noted that the reporting 
requirements and other potential obligations imposed on lawyers to 
verify information about reporting companies and their beneficial 
owners may have a chilling effect on the continued formation of 
entities by many lawyers who routinely form new entities for small 
clients. The commenter expressed concern regarding the disclosure of 
personal information by lawyers for companies with which they may have 
no involvement after formation. The commenter also stated that there is 
a lack of clarity regarding who would be responsible for the reporting 
of the information. The commenter presumes that a lawyer forming an 
entity for a client will likely bear the burden of filing such a 
report, which in turn will result in a much greater harm to those small 
and medium sized business clients across the country who are no longer 
able to obtain legal services in the creation of new entities because 
of the burdensome reporting and investigation requirements placed upon 
legal services providers.
    FinCEN understands this concern. As discussed in Section III.F 
above, the agency has made clear in the final rule that the reporting 
company is ultimately responsible for both making the filing and 
ensuring that it is true, correct, and complete. The same is true of 
the accompanying certification, which is to be made on the reporting 
company's behalf. The revised certification language and locus of 
ultimate responsibility with the reporting company are consistent with 
other FinCEN requirements and certifications with which the regulated 
community is already familiar, and should therefore be sufficient to 
mitigate potential chilling effects based on certification concerns. 
Moreover, it is not uncommon for lawyers and other providers of 
professional services to be subject to professional and legal 
obligations in connection with their provision of services to clients.
    FinCEN understands there may be other concerns associated with 
lawyers and other professionals potentially being reported to FinCEN as 
company applicants. FinCEN views it as unlikely that these concerns 
will result in chilling effects on entity formation services. 
Additionally, FinCEN assesses that any chilling effects that do arise--
including any specific to small and medium-sized entities--should abate 
as service providers become more comfortable with the final rule's 
requirements. As discussed in Section III.D. above, FinCEN has taken 
steps to reduce the burden on company applicants. For example, the 
final rule clarifies that at most two individuals would be considered 
company applicants and reporting companies need not file updated 
reports for those individuals. Finally, the CTA does not distinguish 
between different types of individuals who may be company applicants.
    Another commenter noted that the reporting requirements will have a 
disproportionately adverse effect on underserved communities. This 
commenter explained that one of the primary drivers of inequity in the 
corporate space is regulatory complexity. While established founders 
and companies with access to capital and experts may be able to obtain 
advice and comply with the proposed rule, small businesses in 
underserved communities that do not have such support to help them 
navigate this new regulatory scheme will be disproportionately 
disadvantaged by the proposed rule, and the net effect will be to chill 
formation of new businesses in these communities, limiting their 
economic opportunity.
    Another commenter recommended FinCEN consider the potential adverse 
effects that frequent reporting could have on small companies seeking 
investors. The commenter explained that if the scope of ownership 
interests is not tailored appropriately, small businesses could be 
required to report personally identifiable information for several 
investors. As investors cycle in and out, more information will need to 
be obtained and reported, and the risk of inadvertent disclosure will 
rise. These risks and operational burdens could be a deterrent to 
seeking needed capital, or at least reduce the value of such capital. 
FinCEN is particularly sensitive to potential adverse consequences that 
this final rule could have for small businesses and underserved 
communities, and has made efforts to minimize burdens on these and 
other segments of the regulated community. Whether additional efforts 
are necessary is a question FinCEN will evaluate as it receives 
feedback from stakeholders after reporting requirements take effect.
ii. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
a. Overview of the RIA
    The RIA begins with a summary of the rationale for the final rule, 
five regulatory alternatives to the final rule, and findings from the 
cost and benefit analysis. The next section is a detailed cost analysis 
that considers costs to: the public (including sub-sections estimating 
the affected public for BOI reports, the cost of initial BOI reports, 
the cost of updated BOI reports, and the cost of FinCEN identifiers); 
FinCEN; and other government agencies. The section concludes with other 
cost considerations. The next section is a qualitative discussion of 
benefits. This is followed by conclusions. FinCEN revised some of the 
organization, sub-headings, and wording of the RIA for further clarity. 
Changes to the analysis or assumptions are clearly specified, as well 
as references to comments that are incorporated into the RIA. In the 
course of this discussion, FinCEN describes its estimates, along with 
any non-quantifiable costs and benefits.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ Throughout the analysis, FinCEN rounds estimates for 
entity counts to the nearest whole number, and any wage and growth 
estimates to the nearest 1 or 2 decimal places. Calculations may not 
be precise due to rounding, but FinCEN expects this rounding method 
produces no meaningful difference in the magnitude of FinCEN's 
estimates or conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Rationale for the Final Rule
    This rule is necessary to comply with and implement the CTA. As 
described in the preamble, this rule is consistent with the CTA's 
statutory mandate that FinCEN issue regulations regarding the reporting 
of beneficial ownership information. Specifically, the regulations 
implement the CTA's requirement that reporting companies submit to 
FinCEN a report containing their BOI. As required by the CTA, these 
regulations are designed to minimize the burden on reporting companies 
and to ensure that the information reported to FinCEN is accurate, 
complete, and highly useful. As also described throughout the preamble, 
although the U.S. Government has tools capable of obtaining some BOI, 
the tools' limitations, and the time and cost required to successfully 
deploy them, suggest the magnitude of the benefits that a centralized 
repository of information, free from those limitations, delays, and 
costs, would provide to law enforcement. Additionally, FinCEN's other 
existing regulatory tools have limitations. The 2016 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. But the 2016 CDD Rule has certain limitations: the 
information about beneficial owners of certain U.S. entities seeking to 
open an account at a covered financial institution is not

[[Page 59559]]

comprehensive, not reported to the Government, and not immediately 
available to law enforcement, intelligence, or national security 
agencies. The CTA's statutory mandate that FinCEN collect BOI will 
address these existing challenges and result in increased transparency 
of corporate beneficial ownership to appropriate government agencies 
throughout the United States.
c. Discussion of Regulatory Alternatives to the Final Rule
    The rule is statutorily mandated, and therefore FinCEN has limited 
ability to implement alternatives. However, FinCEN considered certain 
significant alternatives in the NPRM that would be available under the 
statute. FinCEN replicated those alternatives here with adjustments for 
clarity and for incorporated changes to the RIA. FinCEN also included 
two additional alternative scenarios. The sources and analysis 
underlying the burden and cost estimates cited in these alternatives 
are explained in the RIA. Although not replicated in this RIA, the NPRM 
also included a comparison of how the estimated cost changed under 
different burden assumptions.\248\ The NPRM's comparison illustrates 
that the time burden is a significant component of the overall cost of 
the rule and highlights the importance of training, outreach, and 
compliance assistance in the implementation of this rule in order to 
decrease the burden and costs to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ See 86 FR 69968 (Dec. 8, 2021), Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Indirect Submission of BOI
    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 processes that would 
ultimately transmit data to FinCEN. For example, each jurisdictional 
authority would have to build a system to electronically receive BOI; 
scan, quality check, or otherwise process images; protect, secure, and 
store all of the BOI; and provide a receipt of filing acknowledgement. 
Moreover, FinCEN would still have to build numerous interfaces and all 
of the backend systems necessary to securely accept, validate, process, 
and store BOI and test each one of the interfaces with each 
jurisdictional authority. This approach would provide inconsistent 
customer experience, significantly increase testing efforts for FinCEN, 
and potentially create security vulnerabilities if jurisdictional 
authorities did not adhere to government-mandated security standards. 
As a lower bound estimate, if FinCEN assumes that jurisdictions would 
incur 25 percent of FinCEN's stated initial IT development costs of 
approximately $72 million, then each jurisdiction would incur 
approximately $18 million in development costs. As an upper bound 
estimate, if FinCEN assumes that jurisdictions would incur 75 percent 
of the stated costs, then each jurisdiction could incur as much as 
approximately $54 million for IT development, plus additional ongoing 
maintenance costs. At either end of the range, this scenario would 
impose significant costs on state and local governments, as well as 
increase the total costs associated with the rule.\249\ FinCEN does not 
assess that this scenario will significantly decrease FinCEN's 
estimated costs; FinCEN will still incur costs in developing the IT 
systems to receive and administer access to BOI, and FinCEN will likely 
incur additional costs in organizing activities and reporting streams 
across multiple jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ In the NPRM, FinCEN suggested that costs to State or local 
governments in this alternative scenario could range from 10 percent 
to 100 percent. Given feedback received through the rulemaking 
process, FinCEN is adjusting this range to be from 25 percent to 75 
percent. The lower bound range increases to 25 percent to account 
for potential burden increases to these jurisdictions related to 
system requirements. The upper bound is lowered to 75 percent, since 
these jurisdictions are not building any disclosure methods under 
this scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. These comments were summarized in the 
NPRM,\250\ and based on the issues they raised, FinCEN decided not to 
propose an alternative in which reporting companies would submit BOI to 
FinCEN through another jurisdictional authority. FinCEN noted in the 
NPRM that it 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 
requested comment. Responsive comments have noted the challenges with 
implementing this scenario. A discussion of this alternative scenario 
is included to address comments that continued to question whether 
reporting to FinCEN was necessary, given that states collect such 
information. As concluded in the NPRM, FinCEN believes indirect 
reporting is not a viable alternative and rejects it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ See 86 FR 66954-69955 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reporting Timeline for Existing Entities
    The CTA requires reporting companies already in existence when the 
final rule comes into effect to submit initial BOI reports to FinCEN 
``in a timely manner, and not later than 2 years after'' that effective 
date.\251\ In the NPRM, FinCEN proposed requiring existing reporting 
companies to submit initial reports within one year of the effective 
date, which is permissible given the CTA's two-year maximum timeframe. 
As noted in the NPRM, however, FinCEN considered giving existing 
reporting companies the entire two years to submit initial BOI reports 
as authorized by the statute, and compared the cost to the public under 
the one-year and two-year scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both scenarios, the estimated cost per initial BOI report ranges 
from $85.14 to $2,614.87, depending on the complexity of a reporting 
company's beneficial ownership structure. That cost does not change 
depending on whether reporting companies have to incur it within one 
year or two years of the rule's effective date. If all 32,556,929 
existing reporting companies have to incur it in the same single year, 
the aggregate cost to all existing reporting companies is approximately 
$21.7 billion for Year 1, after applying the beneficial ownership 
distribution assumption. FinCEN assumed that if the reporting deadline 
for existing reporting companies was two years from the final rule's 
effective date, then half of those entities would file their initial 
BOI report in the first year and the other half would file in the 
second, dividing that initial aggregate cost in half to produce average 
aggregate costs of approximately $10.8 billion in each year.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ Changing the estimated number of initial reports in Year 1 
and Year 2 has downstream effects on other estimates in the 
analysis. FinCEN assumes that the estimated number of FinCEN 
identifier applications tied to initial report filings (the number 
is estimated to be 1 percent of reporting companies) would similarly 
extend from a one-year to two-year period. Half of the initial 
FinCEN identifier applications, which FinCEN assumes are linked to 
persons with ties to existing reporting companies, would be filed in 
Year 1, and the other half in Year 2. FinCEN also assumed that 
updated reports and FinCEN identifier information would increase at 
an incremental rate throughout the two-year period (rather than one-
year), and therefore calculated the number of updated reports by 
extending its methodology to a 24-month timeframe (rather than a 12-
month timeframe). From Year 3 onward, estimates related to initial 
BOI reports would be based on the number newly created reporting 
companies.

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

[[Page 59560]]

    According to FinCEN's analysis, requiring existing reporting 
companies to file initial BOI reports within two years of the rule's 
effective date instead of one results in a 10-year horizon present 
value at a three percent discount rate of approximately $60.3 billion 
instead of $64.8 billion--a difference of approximately $4.5 billion 
and a 10-year horizon present value at a seven percent discount rate of 
approximately $51.1 billion instead of $55.7 billion--a difference of 
approximately $4.6 billion. FinCEN assesses, however, that these long-
term figures obscure the practical reality that having to incur the 
same cost one year from the rule's effective date instead of two years 
from its effective date will have little impact on most existing 
reporting companies. The cost is the same either way. Additionally, 
FinCEN's effective date of January 1, 2024 will allow for a substantial 
outreach effort to notify reporting companies about the requirement and 
give existing reporting companies time to understand the requirement 
prior to the one-year timeline. Because a year's difference for initial 
compliance does not change the per reporting company impact and because 
of the value to law enforcement and other authorized users of having 
access to accurate, timely BOI in the relatively near term, given the 
time-sensitive nature of investigations, FinCEN rejects this 
alternative.
3. Reporting Timeline for Updated BOI Reports
    As in the NPRM, FinCEN considered whether to require reporting 
companies to update BOI reports within 30 days of a change to submitted 
BOI (as proposed in the NPRM) or within one year of such change (the 
maximum permitted under the CTA).\253\ FinCEN compared the cost to the 
public of these two scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN assumed that allowing reporting companies to update reports 
within one year would result in ``bundled'' updates encompassing 
multiple changes. For example, a reporting company that knows one 
beneficial owner plans to dispose of ownership interests in two months 
while another plans to change residences in four might wait several 
months to report both changes to FinCEN. Meanwhile, law enforcement 
agencies and others with authorized access to--and interest in--the 
relevant reporting company's BOI would be operating with outdated 
information and potentially wasting time and resources. A shorter 30-
day requirement, on the other hand, would be more likely to result in 
reporting companies filing discrete reports associated with each 
individual change, allowing those with authorized access to BOI to stay 
better updated.
    From a cost perspective, FinCEN assumed that bundling would result 
in reporting companies submitting approximately half as many updated 
reports overall. FinCEN also assumed that bundled reports would have 
the same time burden per report as discrete updated reports, given that 
the expected BOSS functionality requires all information to be 
submitted on each updated report.
    Were FinCEN to require updates within one year instead of 30 days, 
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 potentially reduced burden in its estimate other 
than in the time required to collect information for an updated report, 
but discusses this potential collection cost more in the cost analysis 
section of the RIA. FinCEN's cost estimates for updated reports also do 
not currently account for the possibility that individuals using FinCEN 
identifiers might further reduce costs by alleviating reporting 
companies of the responsibility of filing updated BOI for those 
beneficial owners. This is because those beneficial owners would be 
responsible for keeping the BOI associated with their FinCEN 
identifiers updated, consistent with the requirements of the rule.
    FinCEN estimated that requiring reporting companies to update 
reports in one year instead of 30 days results in an aggregate present 
value cost decrease of approximately $7.4 billion at a seven percent 
discount rate or $9.1 billion at a three percent discount rate over a 
10-year horizon. The annual aggregate cost savings to reporting 
companies (which FinCEN assumes are small entities) would be 
approximately $519.3 million in the first year and $1.1 billion each 
year thereafter. These cost savings would be due to reporting companies 
filing fewer reports.
    While FinCEN does not dismiss an aggregate cost savings to the 
public, the bureau does not view the savings in that amount as 
offsetting the corresponding degradation to BOI database quality that 
would come with allowing reporting companies to wait a full year to 
update BOI with FinCEN. As noted in both the preamble and NPRM, FinCEN 
considers keeping the database current and accurate as essential to 
keeping it highly useful, and that allowing reporting companies to wait 
to update beneficial ownership information for more than 30 days--or 
allowing them to report updates on only an annual basis--could cause a 
significant degradation in accuracy and usefulness of the database. 
While risks such as this are difficult to quantify, these concerns 
justify the increased cost.
4. Company Applicant Reporting for Existing Reporting Companies and 
Updates for All Reporting Companies
    In the NPRM, FinCEN considered requiring reporting companies in 
existence on the rule's effective date to report company applicant 
information with their initial reports. FinCEN further considered 
requiring all reporting companies to update changes to company 
applicant information as they occur in the future. Many comments 
criticized these requirements as overly burdensome. While the final 
rule does not include these requirements, this alternative analysis 
assesses what the cost would have been if those requirements had been 
retained.
    Numerous comments to the NPRM noted that existing entities would 
bear a significant cost in identifying company applicants, who may not 
have had contact with the reporting company since its initial 
formation. Based on comments, FinCEN assesses that each existing 
reporting company, regardless of structure, would have incurred an 
additional burden of 60 minutes per initial report in locating and 
reaching out to the company applicant(s). This estimate represents the 
average amount of time to locate information for company applicants, 
taking into account there may be instances where the company applicant 
is known, with easily obtained information, as well as other instances 
where the company applicant is unknown and difficult or impossible to 
locate. Using the wage estimate from the cost analysis in Section 
V.A.ii.e. below, this would total an additional $56.76 per initial 
report in Year 1. FinCEN only applies this burden to Year 1 to reflect 
that it would affect existing entities' initial BOI reports, which 
would be filed within Year 1. FinCEN acknowledges that some of the 
initial BOI reports in Year 1 will be from newly created entities that 
would likely not incur this additional time burden, but to be 
conservative, FinCEN applied the burden to all initial reports in Year 
1 for this analysis. At least one commenter also noted that such a 
requirement could result in costs to state governments, as reporting 
companies may enlist secretaries of state

[[Page 59561]]

or similar offices to help look for historical company applicants, 
which FinCEN has not separately calculated, but assumes is part of the 
60 minutes added to the burden estimate.
    In the NPRM, FinCEN estimated how many report updates would likely 
stem from changes to company applicant information.\254\ This was based 
on an assumption that 90 percent of BOI reports would have one company 
applicant while 10 percent of reports would have two company 
applicants. The RIA includes an updated distribution of reporting 
companies' beneficial ownership structures, which is applied to this 
analysis. The updated distribution estimates that 59 percent of 
reporting companies would have no unique company applicant (the company 
applicant would be the beneficial owner); 36.1 percent would have one 
company applicant; and 4.9 percent would have two company applicants. 
Applying the estimated cost of an updated report from the analysis in 
Section V.A.ii.e. below (which increased from the cost assessed in the 
NPRM), this would result in an additional cost in Year 1 of $2.3 
billion and $1 billion each year thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ 86 FR 69963 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the burden of submitting initial company applicant 
information and subsequent report updates, companies may have also 
incurred a cost associated with monitoring changes to company applicant 
information. This cost may have been significant, especially given that 
company applicants are less likely to stay in regular contact with 
associated reporting companies. This additional burden from ongoing 
monitoring is not separately estimated and could result in an 
underestimation of the cost savings to reporting companies in this 
alternative scenario.
    FinCEN estimated that requiring company applicant reporting and 
updates for existing entities results in a present value cost increase 
of approximately $8.3 billion at a seven percent discount rate or $9.9 
billion at a three percent discount rate over a 10-year horizon. FinCEN 
did not select this scenario, thereby reducing the cost to small 
businesses.
5. Alternative Definitions of Beneficial Owner
    FinCEN considered many alternative definitions of ``beneficial 
owner'' due to comments received in the NPRM. Some of these comments 
proposed that the definition of beneficial owner should match the 
definition in the 2016 CDD Rule, under which one person must be 
identified as in substantial control, with up to four other beneficial 
owners identified by way of equity interests of 25 percent or more, for 
a maximum of 5 beneficial owners.
    Using the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of ``beneficial owner'' would 
decrease the time burden for some reporting companies reviewing which 
individuals to report as beneficial owners in their initial reports. 
This is because that definition is already known to most reporting 
companies, ties ownership to narrow ``equity interests'' rather than 
``ownership interests,'' and caps the maximum number of beneficial 
owners a company can have for purposes of the rule at five. This 
combination would make it easier for some entities to identify 
individuals to report as beneficial owners, and would reduce the number 
of individuals they have to report. However, FinCEN assesses that the 
majority of reporting companies are unlikely to have more than five 
beneficial owners to report under the rule. FinCEN assumes that 59 
percent of reporting companies will have one beneficial owner and an 
additional 36.1 percent of reporting companies will have four 
beneficial owners, and therefore would not significantly benefit in 
terms of reporting burden from the narrower definition.\255\ Most of 
the benefits of using the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of beneficial 
owner therefore seem likely to accrue to reporting companies with more 
complex beneficial ownership structures, which FinCEN estimates at 4.9 
percent of reporting companies. All reporting companies would benefit 
from being able to reuse information previously provided to financial 
institutions for compliance with a CDD rule with which they are already 
familiar (existing reporting companies) or that would have to be 
provided to financial institutions in order to obtain necessary 
financial services (new reporting companies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ See Table 1 in the RIA and preceding text for discussion 
regarding the distribution of reporting companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because reporting companies are already familiar with the 2016 CDD 
Rule and would not need to spend time understanding the requirement, 
FinCEN assumes that adopting the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of 
``beneficial owner'' would reduce the time burden of the first portion 
of initial BOI reports' time burden by a third for all reporting 
companies, regardless of beneficial ownership structure. In the cost 
analysis in Section V.A.ii.e. below, the first portion of initial BOI 
reports' time burden is to ``read FinCEN BOI documents, understand the 
requirement, and analyze the reporting company definition.'' However, 
if the 2016 CDD Rule definition was adopted, ``understanding the 
requirement'' would not apply, as reporting companies are already 
familiar with the requirement. The second portion of initial reports' 
time burden, ``identify . . . beneficial owners . . .,'' would likely 
also be less burdensome given reporting companies may have already done 
this exercise for compliance with the 2016 CDD Rule. However, FinCEN 
assumes the decreased burden in the first portion of the time burden 
will already account for this. Therefore, this decrease in burden will 
result in a per-report cost reduction of approximately $25.23 for 
reporting companies with a simple structure.
    Additionally, reporting companies with complex beneficial ownership 
structures, which FinCEN assessed to be 4.9 percent of reporting 
companies, will have a decreased time burden for other steps related to 
filing initial BOI reports and updated reports. This is because FinCEN 
currently assesses the costs to such entities in the scenario in which 
they report 10 people on their BOI report (8 beneficial owners and 2 
company applicants). If the 2016 CDD Rule definition of ``beneficial 
owner'' was adopted, then such entities would instead report the 
maximum of 5 beneficial owners and 2 company applicants, or 7 people. 
For consistency, FinCEN assumes that this would result in a reduction 
of a third of the time for ``identifying, collecting and reviewing 
information about beneficial owners and company applicants,'' and a 
reduction of 30 minutes in filling out and filing the report (10 
minutes for each of the 3 beneficial owners no longer reported, given 
the definition's cap). With all of these time burden reductions 
included, the initial report time burden estimate for reporting 
companies with complex ownership structures would be reduced by 390 
minutes (650 minutes versus 260 minutes), which results in a per-report 
cost reduction of approximately $369 ($2,614.87 versus $2,245.95).\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ This cost analysis estimates an hourly wage rate of 
$56.76. Dividing this wage rate by 60 minutes yields a cost of 
approximately $0.95 per minute; if this rate is multiplied by 390 
minutes, the cost is approximately $369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to calculate the total cost change of the rule under this 
alternative, FinCEN assumes that all time burdens related to updated 
reports and FinCEN identifiers would remain the same with one 
exception. FinCEN applies the same time reduction for complexly 
structured reporting companies' updated report time burden as applied 
for initial reports (a decrease from 110 minutes to

[[Page 59562]]

80 minutes) to account for only 7 persons submitted on the form. 
Therefore, FinCEN assesses that adopting the 2016 CDD Rule's definition 
of ``beneficial owner'' would decrease the cost in Year 1 by $3.4 
billion and $614.5 million in each year thereafter. The present value 
cost decreases by approximately $7 billion at a seven percent discount 
rate or $8 billion at a three percent discount rate over a 10-year 
horizon. This benefit to small businesses would come at the significant 
cost of undermining the purpose of the CTA, which specifically calls 
for the identification of ``each beneficial owner of the applicable 
reporting company,'' without reference to a maximum number. As 
explained in the preamble, the 2016 CDD Rule's numerical limitation on 
beneficial owners contributes to the omission of persons that have 
substantial control of a reporting company, but are not reported. 
Replicating that approach in this rule would primarily benefit more 
complex entities, with the foreseeable consequence of allowing illicit 
actors to easily conceal their ownership or control of legal entities. 
This is a considerable cost to the U.S. economy that FinCEN assesses 
would not benefit most reporting companies. This lopsided balance led 
FinCEN to reject suggestions to adopt the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of 
``beneficial ownership'' in the final reporting rule.
d. Summary of Findings
1. Costs
    The cost analysis estimates costs to the public, FinCEN, and other 
government agencies. The public cost estimates included detailed 
analysis estimating the size of the affected public, costs related to 
filing initial BOI reports, costs related to filing updated BOI 
reports, and costs relating to obtaining and maintaining a FinCEN 
identifier. FinCEN estimates that it will cost the majority of the 32.6 
million domestic and foreign reporting companies that are estimated to 
exist as of the January 2024 effective date approximately $85 apiece to 
prepare and submit an initial BOI report. In comparison, the state 
formation fee for creating a limited liability company could be between 
$40 and $500, depending on the state.\257\ Commenters provided feedback 
on these cost estimates, as well as additional cost considerations, 
which are summarized in the cost analysis section in Section V.A.ii.e. 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ One commenter stated that ``the current costs charged for 
formation of a U.S. foreign subsidiary not owned by a large entity 
varies between $1,500-2,000.'' 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 will also entail costs to FinCEN. This 
RIA estimates costs to FinCEN for information technology (IT) 
development and ongoing annual maintenance, as well as processing 
electronic submissions of BOI data. FinCEN will incur additional costs 
while implementing the BOI reporting requirements. FinCEN and other 
government agencies may also incur costs in enforcing compliance with 
the regulation. The RIA includes a quantitative and qualitative 
discussion related to government costs. Some comments to the NPRM 
discussed or asked for clarification regarding the FinCEN cost 
estimates.
    The rule does not impose direct costs on state, local, and Tribal 
governments. However, state, local, and Tribal governments will incur 
indirect costs in connection with the implementation of the rule. 
Comments to the NPRM from state authorities and others described 
potential costs that such entities may incur due to the rule. FinCEN 
summarizes and discusses these comments above in connection with 
regulatory alternatives to the final rule, and also includes a 
discussion of such indirect costs in the RIA.
    The present value of the total cost over a 10-year time horizon at 
a seven percent discount rate for the rule is approximately $55.7 
billion. At a three percent discount rate, the present value is 
approximately $64.8 billion as the aggregate cost estimate of the rule.
2. Benefits
    There are several benefits associated with this rule. These 
benefits are interrelated and likely include better, more efficient 
investigations by law enforcement, and assistance to other authorized 
users in a variety of activities, which in turn may strengthen national 
security, enhance financial system transparency and integrity, and 
align the U.S. financial system more thoroughly with international 
financial standards. These benefits of the rule are difficult to 
quantify. A detailed discussion of the significant benefits is included 
in the qualitative discussion of benefits in Section V.A.ii.f. below. 
FinCEN did not receive significant comments regarding the estimate of 
benefits in the NPRM, although some comments spoke generally about the 
benefits BOI will bring authorized users and the wider benefits of 
corporate transparency.
e. Detailed Discussion of Costs
    The rule will incur costs to the public related to BOI reports and 
FinCEN identifiers, costs to FinCEN for administering the reporting 
process, and costs to other government agencies that may be involved in 
enforcement of the reporting requirements or receive questions about 
the process from the public. The discussion of costs includes both 
quantitative and qualitative items.
1. Costs to the public
    The primary cost to the public associated with the rule will result 
from the requirement that reporting companies must file an initial BOI 
report with FinCEN, and update those reports as appropriate. To assess 
this cost, FinCEN first estimates the affected public, which is the 
number of reporting companies that will be required to file. FinCEN 
then considers the steps and costs associated with filing an initial 
BOI report and updating those BOI reports. These estimations draw upon 
and include points raised by commenters.
Affected Public for BOI Reports
    The rule requires reporting companies to file BOI reports and 
update them as needed. The reporting companies are the affected public 
for this requirement. To estimate reporting companies, FinCEN first 
estimated the total number of entities that could be reporting 
companies and then subtracted the number of entities FinCEN estimates 
will be exempt from the reporting company definition. FinCEN does not 
have definitive counts of reporting companies, but has identified 
information relevant to the definition. None of the information 
identified by FinCEN can be used in the analysis to estimate the number 
of reporting companies without caveats.
    Reporting companies include domestic and foreign entities. FinCEN 
first estimated the number of domestic entities, regardless of type, 
that will be in existence at the rule's effective date and then created 
yearly thereafter. While the definition of ``domestic reporting 
company'' is any entity that is a corporation, limited liability 
company, or other entity that is created by the filing of a document 
with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law

[[Page 59563]]

of a state or Indian tribe, FinCEN is not able to limit its estimate of 
domestic entities to specific entity types or to entities created by 
such a filing in each jurisdiction that falls under the rule's 
requirement because not all entity types are specified in the 
underlying data and because of variance among state-by-state filing 
practices. This simplifies the analysis but may produce overestimations 
of affected entities and total burden and costs.
    As noted in the NPRM, FinCEN considered many possible data sources 
in estimating total and annual new domestic entities.\258\ While none 
of the considered data sources provided a complete picture of domestic 
entities, they provided an approximate range for estimation and 
highlighted 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 rule. To estimate the number 
of initial total and then ongoing annual new domestic entities in the 
NPRM, FinCEN proposed analyzing data from the most recent iteration 
(2018) of the annual report of jurisdictions survey administered by the 
IACA,\259\ in which a subset of state authorities provided statistical 
data in response to the same series of questions on the number of total 
entities and total new entities in their jurisdictions by entity type. 
FinCEN stated in the NPRM that it proposed relying upon IACA data 
because the survey provides consistency in format and response among 
multiple states. However, FinCEN also noted potential shortcomings that 
the IACA data may not exactly match the definition of ``domestic 
reporting company'' in the proposed rule, and may have other 
limitations.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ See 86 FR 69956 (Dec. 8, 2021).
    \259\ See International Association of Commercial 
Administrators, Annual Reports of Jurisdictions Survey (2018), 
available at https://www.iaca.org/annual-reports/.
    \260\ As noted in the NPRM, these data limitations included not 
specifying general partnerships. See 86 FR 69956 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN received comments regarding the data source for this 
analysis. Commenters were generally concerned that the source was 
outdated and included only a few states. Some comments proposed other 
sources. In light of these comments, FinCEN reviewed a number of public 
data sources from the U.S. Census Bureau.
    The first, Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), is an annual 
series that provides national and subnational data on the distribution 
of economic data by establishment industry and enterprise size.\261\ 
The 2019 SUSB Annual Data Table provides the number of firms, 
establishment, employment, and annual payroll for U.S. businesses. The 
dataset totals 6,102,412 firms; however, firms included in this table 
must have ``paid employees at some time during the year.'' \262\ 
Similar to the conclusion in the NPRM, FinCEN determined that this 
dataset had shortcomings when applying it to the reporting company 
definition, as it only represents employer firms and excludes a 
material number of North American Industry Classification System Codes 
(NAICS) industries that should be considered for the purposes of this 
analysis given entities in those industries will likely be reporting 
companies.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 SUSB Annual Data Tables by 
Establishment Industry (last revised May 27, 2022), available at 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/econ/susb/2019-susb-annual.html. FinCEN also reviewed the data in the NPRM stage, and 
noted it was not aware of a methodology that may be applied to 
``carve out'' entities that meet the definition of reporting 
companies from the SUSB data. See 86 FR 69956 (Dec. 8, 2021).
    \262\ A firm is a business organization consisting of one or 
more domestic establishments in the same geographic area and 
industry that were specified under common ownership or control. The 
firm and the establishment are the same for single-establishment 
firms. For each multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same 
industry within a geographic area will be counted as one firm; the 
firm employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated 
establishments. See U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB Glossary (last revised 
April 8, 2022), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/about/glossary.html.
    \263\ Among those NAICS industries not included are crop and 
animal production; rail transportation; pension, health, welfare, 
and vacation funds; and others. See U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB Program 
Coverage (last revised April 1, 2022), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/about.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next Census Bureau data source reviewed was the Annual Business 
Survey (ABS) Program.\264\ The ABS combines data results from survey 
respondents and administrative records to produce data on business 
ownership. The survey is collected from employer businesses. The table 
2020 ABS--Characteristics of Businesses provides 2019 data on the 
number of owners and employees for 5,771,292 employer firms.\265\ 
FinCEN used this dataset is to estimate a distribution for reporting 
companies' beneficial ownership structure complexity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Business Survey (ABS) 
Program (last revised July 5, 2022), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/abs.html.
    \265\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Annual Business Survey 
(ABS)--Characteristics of Businesses (last revised Oct. 26, 2021), 
available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/econ/abs/2020-abs-characteristics-of-businesses.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third Census Bureau data source reviewed was the Nonemployer 
Statistics (NES), an annual series that provides subnational economic 
data for businesses that have no paid employees and are subject to 
federal income tax.\266\ The Nonemployer Statistics: 2019 Table, 
released in 2022, is derived from tax return data shared by the 
IRS.\267\ This dataset provides a breakdown of the different types of 
legal formations of nonemployer establishments. For example, 86.46 
percent of the total 27,104,006 nonemployer establishments in 2019 were 
sole proprietorships, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. FinCEN 
confirmed through outreach that Census categorizes single-owner LLCs as 
proprietorships, consistent with their equivalence for tax purposes. 
This percentage is relevant to the estimated distribution of reporting 
companies' beneficial ownership complexity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics (NES) (last 
revised July 12, 2022), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nonemployer-statistics.html.
    \267\ See U.S. Census Bureau, NES Tables 2019 (last revised June 
27, 2022), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nonemployer-statistics/data/tables.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FinCEN reviewed IACA's 2021 International Business 
Registers Report to see whether the data could be used to estimate the 
total number of domestic entities.\268\ This dataset includes 
statistics provided by a subset of state authorities in response to a 
series of questions on the number of total entities and total new 
entities in their jurisdictions by entity type. The 2021 version of 
this report provides data for 2018, 2019, and 2020 for each reporting 
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ FinCEN reached out to IACA following their comment to the 
NPRM, and this source was identified in that outreach. See 
International Association of Commercial Administrators, 2021 
International Business Registers Report, (2021), available at 
https://www.iaca.org/ibrs-survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN is relying upon IACA's 2021 International Business Registers 
Report data in this analysis because it: provides a consistent survey 
format; is based on state authorities' data, which more closely aligns 
to the definition of reporting company; and includes multiple years of 
data that enabled FinCEN to determine a company formation growth factor 
and extrapolate the total number of U.S. entities expected by the end 
of 2024 (the rule's effective date). Given that the rule's domestic 
reporting company definition requires an entity to be created by a 
filing with a secretary of state or similar office, FinCEN believes 
that the most relevant data source for estimating the number of 
reporting companies is data provided by state authorities. Relying on 
data linked to federal tax filings, for example, would be further 
removed

[[Page 59564]]

from the definition of the population FinCEN aims to estimate than data 
provided by state authorities. FinCEN received statistics from a few 
state authorities in both the ANPRM and NPRM comment process.\269\ 
However, IACA's dataset provides a consistent survey format across 
multiple state authorities, which FinCEN continues to assess to be the 
best approach for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ Such comments to the NPRM are summarized above. ANPRM 
comments were summarized in the NPRM. See 86 FR 69956 (Dec. 8, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach utilizes the same source originator as the NPRM 
(IACA), but relies upon more updated information from the source as 
well as on an annual company formation growth factor, addressing a 
specific concern raised by commenters. FinCEN's 2024 total domestic 
entity estimate based on the 2021 IACA data, adjusted to 2024, is 
36,510,573.
    To estimate the total number of existing domestic entities in the 
United States in 2024, FinCEN leveraged the 2021 IACA dataset and 
performed the following analysis:
    1. FinCEN used data from the ``Number of Registered entities by the 
end of the year'' dataset reported by each of the following 
jurisdictions: Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Washington DC, and 
North Dakota.\270\ The data were for each reported year (2018, 2019, 
and 2020).\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ FinCEN accessed the data by selecting ``2021 International 
Business Registers Report'', available at https://www.iaca.org/ibrs-survey/. Then, FinCEN selected ``BD--Registered Entities'' to view 
the data labeled ``Number of Registered entities by the end of the 
year.'' The states that are included in the 2021 IACA dataset differ 
from those in the 2018 IACA data that FinCEN relied upon in the 
NPRM. States such as Delaware that generally have a high rate of 
entities per capita are not included in the 2021 dataset. FinCEN 
notes that inclusion or removal of such states in the analysis could 
have effects; however, FinCEN compares the estimates based on the 
2018 versus 2021 datasets and finds that they are consistent.
    \271\ Two jurisdictions, Louisiana and North Dakota, only 
reported data for the year 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. FinCEN totaled the number of entities reported for each year for 
each jurisdiction. The IACA data provide a breakdown by type of entity 
(i.e., Limited Liability Company, Private Limited Company, General 
Partnership, or ``other'').\272\ For purposes of estimating the total 
number of entities, the data were aggregated so that each jurisdiction 
had a total number of entities for each reported year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ LLCs comprised the majority of reported entities in the 
data. General Partnerships are included although such entities are 
likely not to fall under the definition of a reporting company 
because FinCEN understands that states do not generally require such 
entities to file creation documents. The total number of General 
Partnerships is relatively small (22,061) and their inclusion is not 
expected to significantly affect the RIA's conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Next, FinCEN calculated the percent change or ``growth factor'' 
for each jurisdiction from 2018 to 2019 and from 2019 and 2020.\273\ 
The percent change for each jurisdiction from these two previous 
calculations was then averaged, effectively providing FinCEN with an 
average annual percent change for each reporting jurisdiction. Finally, 
FinCEN calculated an average across all jurisdictional averages for 
both years to provide the overall average annual percent change across 
all reporting jurisdictions, a 6.83 percent year over year 
increase.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ In the NPRM, FinCEN assumed that the number of new 
entities each year equals the number of dissolved entities. A few 
commenters disagreed with this assumption. FinCEN used the 2021 IACA 
dataset, which included data for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020, to 
identify a year-over-year growth factor and extrapolate to 2024.
    \274\ Two jurisdictions did not provide historical data for 2018 
and 2019. Their reported entities in 2020 were therefore excluded 
from the growth factor analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Next, U.S. Census Bureau data \275\ were compiled for each IACA 
reported jurisdiction and for the total United States population for 
the year 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ See U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Totals and 
Components of Change 2020-2021 (last revised Dec. 21, 2021), 
available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An entity per capita rate was calculated for each of the IACA 
reported jurisdictions by dividing the total estimated domestic 
entities in 2020 (4,232,083) by the total population of respondent 
states for 2020 (50,040,439). The entity per capita rate was 0.085.
    6. FinCEN then multiplied the entity per capita rate by the overall 
United States population in 2020 (331,501,080) to arrive at the 
estimated 2020 total domestic entities in the United States of 
28,036,127.
    7. Finally, by applying the growth factor of 6.83 percent per year 
for four years (i.e., from 2020 through 2024), FinCEN projected there 
will be 36,510,573 existing domestic entities in 2024.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ FinCEN notes that the updated IACA data estimate for 2021 
total domestic entities (using the growth factor) was 29,949,748 
compared to the NPRM total domestic entity estimate of 30,247,071, 
which provides an example of the growth factor's accuracy. However 
the data reviewed by FinCEN showed that there is variation in the 
annual growth of entity formations over the last several years. 
There will likely continue to be variation in this growth in an 
increasing interest rate environment and potential economic 
turbulence. However, for simplicity of the analysis, FinCEN chooses 
to use a simple annualized average growth rate factor for entity 
formation using IACA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the total number of new domestic entities annually in 
the United States after 2024, FinCEN leveraged the 2021 IACA dataset 
and performed the following analysis:
    1. FinCEN used data in the ``Number of Incorporations'' dataset 
reported by each of the jurisdictions (Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, North 
Carolina, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Louisiana, Rhode 
Island, and North Dakota).\277\ The data were for the 2018, 2019, and 
2020 reporting years.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ FinCEN accessed the data by selecting ``2021 International 
Business Registers Report'', available at https://www.iaca.org/ibrs-survey/. Then, FinCEN selected ``BD--Incorporations'' to view the 
data labeled ``Number of Incorporations.'' Notably, the reporting 
jurisdictions differ from the ``Number of Registered entities by the 
end of the year'' dataset. The District of Columbia did not report 
its number of incorporations, whereas Ohio provided its number of 
incorporations but not total registered entities per year.
    \278\ Two jurisdictions, Louisiana and North Dakota, only 
reported data for the year 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. For each reporting jurisdiction, FinCEN calculated the three 
year average number of incorporations.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ FinCEN used the three year average of new domestic 
incorporations rather than most recent year (2020) of data due to 
the significant fluctuation in year-over-year incorporations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. FinCEN totaled the average incorporations for each reporting 
jurisdiction. This total was 631,738 average incorporated entities for 
the reporting sample.
    4. Next, U.S. Census Bureau data were compiled for each IACA 
reporting jurisdiction and for the total United States population for 
the year 2020.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ See U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Totals and 
Components of Change 2020-2021 (last revised Dec. 21, 2021) 
available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. FinCEN calculated the total population for IACA reporting 
jurisdictions by adding each individual reporting jurisdictions' 
population. The total population for reporting jurisdictions in 2020 
was 61,140,933.
    6. FinCEN calculated the rate of incorporated entities per capita 
by dividing the total three year average number of incorporations 
(631,738) by the total population for reporting jurisdictions in 2020 
(61,140,933). The per capita rate was 0.01.
    7. FinCEN multiplied the U.S. Census Bureau's total 2020 population 
(331,501,080) by the per capita rate to arrive at the annual domestic 
incorporation estimate of 3,425,231.
    8. Next, FinCEN calculated the average growth rate factor for new 
annual domestic incorporations. This was performed by taking the 
average of the percent change between 2018 and 2019 for reported 
jurisdictions' total incorporations and the percent change between 2019 
and 2020 for reported

[[Page 59565]]

jurisdictions' total incorporations.\281\ The average growth rate 
factor for new annual domestic incorporations was 13.1 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ Louisiana and North Dakota only reported new 
incorporations for the year 2020 and therefore were excluded from 
the growth factor analysis for this estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Applying the growth factor for new annual domestic 
incorporations of 13.1 percent per year for four years (i.e., from 2020 
through 2024), FinCEN estimates that there will be 5,605,471 new 
domestic entities created in 2024.
    FinCEN also estimates the number of foreign entities already 
registered to do business in one or more jurisdictions within the 
United States as of the effective date of the regulation and the number 
that are newly registered each year thereafter. FinCEN estimates these 
numbers based on tax filing data, noting that it may not include all 
entities that qualify as ``foreign reporting companies'' as defined in 
the rule. In 2019 there were approximately 23,000 partnership tax 
returns filed by foreign partnerships.\282\ Using the 6.83 percent 
annual growth factor, which was applied to each year for five years 
(i.e., from 2019 to 2024), the estimate of these entities in 2024 is 
31,997. In addition, in 2019 an estimated 22,000 foreign corporations 
filed the Form 1120-F (``U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign 
Corporation'')--which is estimated to be 30,605 in 2024. In addition, 
another subset of foreign entities will have requirements under the 
rule: foreign pooled investment vehicles. The 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 report that provides identification 
information of an individual that exercises substantial control over 
the pooled investment vehicle. The NPRM separately estimated the burden 
and costs of foreign pooled investment vehicle reports. However, based 
on current database development, such reports will be filed via the BOI 
report form. Therefore, FinCEN now includes estimates related to this 
requirement as part of the BOI report burden and costs. Based on 
information provided by SEC staff, FinCEN estimates that at least 6,834 
entities will be obligated to make initial reports as of 2021. Applying 
the same growth factor of 6.83 percent increases this estimate to 8,331 
in 2024, when the rule comes into effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adding these foreign estimates (31,997 + 30,605 + 8,331) results in 
an overall estimate of 70,933 foreign entities operating in the United 
States that may be subject to BOI reporting requirements. To estimate 
new foreign companies annually after 2024, FinCEN multiplied the 
estimate of new entities annually, 5,605,471, by the overall ratio of 
existing total foreign companies in 2024 to total entities based on the 
IACA data analysis (70,933)/36,510,573). This results in an estimate of 
10,890 new foreign entities subject to the reporting companies per year 
after 2024.
    Summing the estimates of both domestic and foreign entities, the 
total number of existing entities in 2024 that may be subject to the 
reporting requirements is 36,581,506 and the total number of new 
companies annually thereafter is 5,616,362.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ For analysis purposes, FinCEN assumes that the number of 
new entities per year from years 2-10 will be the same as the 2024 
new entity estimate, which accounts for a growth factor of 13.1 
percent per year from the date of the underlying source (2020) 
through 2024. Annually thereafter, FinCEN assumes no change in the 
number of new entities. FinCEN provides an alternative cost analysis 
in the conclusion section where the 13.1 percent growth factor 
continues throughout the entire 10-year time horizon of the analysis 
(i.e., through 2033). However, this growth factor is possibly an 
overestimate given that it is a based on a relatively narrow 
timeframe of data (two years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN corroborated this estimate with the reviewed Census Bureau 
data. The total nonemployer entities from the Nonemployer Statistics 
(NES): 2019 Table was 27,104,006. The total number of employer entities 
was 5,771,292 from the 2020 ABS--Characteristics of Businesses dataset 
and 6,102,412 from the 2019 SUSB Annual Data Table. Therefore, per U.S. 
Census Bureau data, the total number of entities in the U.S. in 2019 
could be estimated to be 32,875,298 (the total of nonemployer entities 
from the NES and employer entities from the ABS) or 33,206,418 (the 
total of nonemployer entities from the NES and employer entities from 
the SUSB). This roughly aligns with FinCEN's estimate, though FinCEN's 
estimate is higher. This may indirectly address commenter's concerns 
that the data from a small number of states may not be applicable or 
inclusive enough to apply to the rule's jurisdiction.
    To estimate reporting companies that will be subject to BOI filing 
requirements, FinCEN had to subtract the number of entities that will 
meet one or more of the exemptions to the reporting company definition 
from the number of total entities. To estimate 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. Some of these estimates have been updated from the NPRM 
to account for more recent or precise sources. Additionally, the 6.83 
percent growth factor estimate has been applied to all of the exemption 
categories unless otherwise noted.\284\ Although some exempt entity 
types may not experience the same growth as others, FinCEN chose to use 
the 6.83 percent average growth assumption as a general growth for 
consistency and simplicity. FinCEN acknowledges that some categories of 
exempt entities may even decline year over year. However, these are 
potentially outweighed by exempt entity categories that are growing 
year over year and that comprise the majority of the overall exempt 
entity population (i.e., tax-exempt entities). FinCEN applied the 
growth factor as necessary depending on the date of the source of 
information. For example, if the data are based on 2021 information, 
FinCEN applied the growth factor for 3 years (2021 to 2022, 2022 to 
2023, and 2023 to 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ This analysis generalizes trends across different 
categories of exemption categories that may not be the case in 
practice. For example, the number of entities in some exemption 
categories (such as securities reporting issuers, banks, credit 
unions, or brokers or dealers in securities) could decrease over 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN considered whether the data underlying FinCEN's estimate of 
exempt entities in each exemption category aligns with the definition 
of the exemption in the rule. 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. 
As noted in the NPRM, FinCEN identified sources for estimates using 
what it believes to be the best data available related to the exemption 
in question. 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 entities' estimate. Each 
exemption estimate is considered in detail here:

[[Page 59566]]

    1. Securities reporting issuers: FinCEN relied upon information 
provided by SEC staff. This estimate is 7,965.\285\ The number is 
provided by SEC staff based on analysis of all operating companies that 
filed periodic reports pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
with the SEC in calendar year 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ FinCEN did not project how many securities reporting 
issuers could decrease from 2022 to 2024 and therefore left the 2022 
estimate unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Governmental authorities: FinCEN relied 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.\286\ 
FinCEN requested comment in the NPRM on whether such entities should be 
scaled for future entity count projections, and did not receive a 
response. FinCEN assesses that governmental authorities' formation or 
destruction is not connected to economic growth. Therefore, FinCEN does 
not apply the growth factor to this estimate and used a total 
governmental entity count of 90,126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1. Government Units by 
State: Census Years 1942 to 2017 (last revised Oct. 8, 2021), 
available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Banks: FinCEN accessed the number of Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC)-insured entities as of June 30, 2022, through the 
``Institution Directory'' on FDIC's Data Tools website. FinCEN searched 
for active institutions anywhere in the United States, which resulted 
in 4,780 insured institutions (banks).\287\ FinCEN also considered 
whether to include in this estimate uninsured entities that are 
required to implement written AML programs as a result of a final rule 
issued on September 15, 2020.\288\ However, given that the exemption 
may or may not apply to these entities, FinCEN did not include them. 
FinCEN did not apply a growth factor to these entities because of the 
downward trend in bank counts over the last several decades, as 
evidenced in the FDIC data. Therefore, FinCEN used a total bank count 
of 4,780.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Details and 
Financials--Institution Directory, available at https://www7.fdic.gov/idasp/advSearchLanding.asp.
    \288\ 85 FR 57129 (Sept. 15, 2020).
    \289\ FinCEN did not project how many banks could decrease from 
2022 to 2024 and therefore left the 2022 estimate unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Credit unions: There are 4,853 federally insured credit unions 
as of June 30, 2022.\290\ FinCEN did not apply a growth factor to these 
entities because of the downward trend in credit union counts over the 
last several decades, as evidenced in the NCUA data. Therefore, FinCEN 
used a total credit union count of 4,853.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ See National Credit Union Administration, Quarterly Credit 
Union Data Summary (Q2, 2022), p. i, available https://www.ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2022-Q2.pdf.
    \291\ FinCEN did not project how many credit unions could 
decrease from 2022 to 2024 and therefore left the 2022 estimate 
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Depository institution holding companies: According to a report 
from the Federal Reserve, as of December 31, 2021, there are 3,546 bank 
holding companies and 10 savings and loan holding companies (6 
insurance, 4 commercial).\292\ FinCEN did not apply a growth factor to 
these entities because of the downward trend in depository institution 
holding company counts over the last several decades. Therefore, FinCEN 
used a total count of 3,556 (3,546 bank holding companies and 10 
savings and loan holding companies).\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Supervision and 
Regulation Report, (May 2022), p. 18, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/202205-supervision-and-regulation-report.pdf.
    \293\ FinCEN did not project how many depository holding 
companies could decrease from 2021 to 2024 and therefore left the 
2021 estimate unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Money services businesses: According to the FinCEN Money 
Services Business (MSB) Registrant Search page, there are 23,622 
registered MSBs as of July 8, 2022.\294\ 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 will not be within the scope of the exemption since they are not 
registered with FinCEN. FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 26,957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ See Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, MSB Registrant 
Search, available at https://www.fincen.gov/msb-registrant-search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Brokers or dealers in securities: According to the SEC's Fiscal 
Year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, the number of registered 
broker-dealers in fiscal year 2021 was 3,527.\295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ Securities and Exchange Commission, ``Fiscal Year 2023 
Congressional Budget Justification,'' https://www.sec.gov/files/fy-2023-congressional-budget-justification-annual-performance-plan_final.pdf, p. 33. FinCEN did not project how many brokers or 
dealers in securities could decrease from 2022 to 2024 and therefore 
left the 2022 estimate unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Securities exchanges or clearing agencies: According to the 
SEC's website, there are 24 registered national securities exchanges 
and 14 registered clearing agencies (includes Proposed Rule Change 
Filings and Advance Notice Filings), totaling 38 entities.\296\ 
FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Self-Regulatory 
Organization Rulemaking, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Other Exchange Act registered entities: According to an SEC 
proposed rule, there are two exclusive securities information 
processors.\297\ The SEC's website shows that there is one national 
securities association, the Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority.\298\ According to data available on the SEC's website as of 
July 2022, there are 467 municipal advisors.\299\ The SEC's website 
lists 10 nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.\300\ 
The SEC granted two applications to register as security-based swap 
repositories.\301\ According to prior SEC proposed collection notices, 
there are three approved OTC derivatives dealers as of 2019 \302\ and 
373 registered transfer agents as of mid-2018.\303\ According to data 
available on the SEC's website, there are 48 security-based swap 
dealers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Proposed Rule: Market 
Data Infrastructure, 85 FR 16731 (Mar. 24, 2020).
    \298\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Self-Regulatory 
Organization Rulemaking, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
    \299\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Information about 
Registered Municipal Advisors (July 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/help/foia-docs-muniadvisorshtm.html.
    \300\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Current NRSROs, 
available at https://www.sec.gov/ocr/ocr-current-nrsros.html.
    \301\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Security-Based Swap 
Data Repositories; ICE Trade Vault, LLC; Order Approving Application 
for Registration as a Security-Based Swap Data Repository (June 16, 
2021), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2021/34-92189.pdf and Security-Based Swap Data Repositories; DTCC Data 
Repository (U.S.), LLC; Order Approving Application for Registration 
as a Security-Based Swap Data Repository (May 7, 2021), available at 
https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2021/34-91798.pdf.
    \302\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request, 84 FR 6450 (Feb. 27, 2019).
    \303\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request, 83 FR 47949 (Sept. 21, 2018).

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

[[Page 59567]]

as of July 13, 2022.\304\ The total count of these entities is 906. 
FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 1,034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ Securities and Exchange Commission, List of Registered 
Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap 
Participants, available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/List-of-SBS-Dealers-and-Major-SBS-Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Investment companies or investment advisers: According to 
information provided by SEC staff, there are 2,764 registered 
investment companies (number of trusts, not funds) and 14,739 
registered investment advisers as of December 2021. This totals 17,503. 
FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 21,337.
    11. Venture capital fund advisers: According to information 
provided by SEC staff, there are 1,776 exempt reporting advisers 
utilizing the exemption from registration as an adviser solely to one 
or more venture capital funds as of December 2021. FinCEN's 2024 
estimate is 2,165.
    12. Insurance companies: According to the Treasury Department's 
Federal Insurance Office's annual report on the insurance industry, 
there were 676 life and health insurers, 2,614 property and casualty 
insurers, and 1,260 health insurers licensed in the United States 
during 2020, totaling 4,550.\305\ FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 5,925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \305\ U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Insurance Office, 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (Sept. 2021), p. 5, 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/FIO-2021-Annual-Report-Insurance-Industry.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. State licensed insurance producers: According to the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners' website, as of October 14, 
2021, there were more than 236,000 business entities licensed to 
provide insurance services in the United States.\306\ FinCEN's 2024 
estimate is 287,698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Producer 
Licensing (last updated Oct. 14, 2021), available at https://content.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_producer_licensing.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Commodity Exchange Act registered entities: Counts related to 
the following entities are available on the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission (CFTC) website: Designated Contract Market (16); Swap 
Execution Facility (19); Designated Clearing Organization (15); and 
Swap Data Repository, Provisionally-registered (4)--totaling 54.\307\ 
Additionally, CFTC staff provided the following breakdown for the 
following companies as of August 31, 2022: Futures Commission Merchant 
(58); Introducing Broker in Commodities (995);Commodity Pool Operators 
(1,256); Commodity Trading Advisory (1,686); Retail Foreign Exchange 
Dealer (4); Swap Dealer, Provisionally-registered (107); and Major Swap 
Participant (0)--totaling 4,106. These totals combined equal 4,160. 
FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 4,747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ Data for each of the entities are available at the 
following respective CFTC websites. The numbers cited herein are as 
of July 11, 2022: https://sirt.cftc.gov/SIRT/SIRT.aspx?Topic=TradingOrganizations (filtered by ``Designated''); 
https://sirt.cftc.gov/SIRT/SIRT.aspx?Topic=SwapExecutionFacilities 
(filtered by ``Registered''); https://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/sirt.aspx?Topic=ClearingOrganizations (filtered by ``Registered''); 
and https://sirt.cftc.gov/sirt/sirt.aspx?Topic=DataRepositories 
(filtered by ``Pending--provisional registration'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Accounting firms: FinCEN searched the Public Company Accounting 
Oversight Board's (PCAOB) Registered Firms list, accessible on their 
website, and identified 835 firms as of July 7, 2022.\308\ 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.'' FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ See Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 
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 
2019 Statistics of U.S. Businesses data for this estimate. FinCEN 
accessed the publicly available 2019 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 6,096.\309\ SUSB data only include 
entities with paid employees at some time during the 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's 
2024 estimate is 8,480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. & states, 6-digit NAICS (2019), 
available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/econ/susb/2019-susb-annual.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Financial market utilities: According to the designated 
financial market utilities listed on the Federal Reserve's website, 
there are eight such entities.\310\ While the website has not been 
updated since January 29, 2015, FinCEN understands this estimate is 
still applicable and that the number is unlikely to change by 2024. 
Therefore no growth factor is applied to this estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Designated Financial 
Market Utilities (Jan. 29, 2015), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/designated_fmu_about.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Pooled investment vehicles: According to information provided 
by SEC staff, as of December 2021 there were 115,756 pooled investment 
vehicle clients reported by registered investment advisers. Of these, 
6,438 are registered with a foreign financial regulatory authority. 
FinCEN subtracted these for a total of 109,318.\311\ FinCEN's 2024 
estimate is 133,265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ This estimate may not account for foreign pooled 
investment vehicles advised by banks, credit unions, or broker-
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Tax-exempt entities: A commenter recommended that FinCEN rely 
on data that more accurately reflect the number of entities with 
federal tax-exempt status. FinCEN therefore relies on the 2021 Internal 
Revenue Service Data Book, which includes an annual count of tax-exempt 
organizations, nonexempt charitable trusts, nonexempt split-interest 
trusts, and section 527 political organizations for fiscal year 2021. 
This number is 1,980,571 as of September 30, 2021.\312\ FinCEN's 2024 
estimate is 2,414,437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ Internal Revenue Service, Data Book, 2021 (May 2022), p. 
30, available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 will have a related entity that 
falls under this exemption, totaling 603,609 in 2024.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ 2,414,437 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.\314\ FinCEN's 2024 estimate is 321,357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \314\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Subsidiaries of certain exempt entities: In the NPRM, FinCEN 
referenced a commercial database provider that indicated there were 
239,892 businesses in the U.S. that were ``majority-owned 
subsidiaries.'' As noted in the NPRM, this estimate was not refined 
further to consider only wholly-owned subsidiaries of certain exempt 
entities. During the review of additional data sources suggested by 
commenters, FinCEN identified that, per the 2020 ABS--Characteristics 
of Businesses survey, 1.97 percent of employer respondents identified

[[Page 59568]]

themselves as a ``business owned by a parent company, estate, trust, or 
other entity.'' \315\ FinCEN applied this percentage to the 2024 total 
entity estimate of 36,581,506 to determine that there will be 720,656 
wholly owned subsidiary entities in 2024. To calculate the subset of 
these entities that are wholly owned subsidiaries of certain exempt 
entities, FinCEN divided the number of exempt entities (not including 
the subsidiary exemption) by the 2024 total estimate to identify that 
around 10.93 percent are certain exempt entities. Finally, FinCEN 
applied this 10.78 percent of certain exempt entities to 720,656 wholly 
owned subsidiaries to calculate an estimated 77,752 subsidiaries of 
certain exempt entities in 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ The 2022 ABS Survey instruction manual states that this 
response should be selected ``when one of these types of 
organizations acted as a single entity in owning all of the rights, 
claims, interests, or stock in this business in 2021.'' FinCEN 
understands this to mean that those entities that selected this 
response should be considered wholly owned subsidiaries for purposes 
of this estimate. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Annual Business 
Survey (ABS) Instructions (2022), p. 7, available at https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/abs/information/ABS-2022-Instructions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Inactive entities: One commenter expressed concern that 
entities considered ``inactive'' in state registries may not be exempt 
from reporting obligations due to the lack of information to reliably 
estimate which and what percentage of administratively dissolved 
entities are, in fact, no longer actively engaged in business. FinCEN 
understands this concern and is not proposing an estimate for this 
exemption due to a lack of available data. FinCEN notes that 
administratively dissolved companies may not be included in the 
estimates from the IACA data.\316\ If this is the case, there is no 
need to subtract such entities from the total entities estimate because 
they are not counted. However, there are likely to be some companies on 
corporate registries in the United States that fall under this 
exemption. If such companies were included in the 2021 IACA survey 
responses, it would impact FinCEN's estimates by increasing the total 
number of reporting companies. This means that FinCEN's estimate of 
reporting companies is potentially over-inclusive rather than under-
inclusive, and therefore the total cost estimate would be less than 
what is estimated in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ IACA's 2017 survey specified in its questions that 
entities be in good standing or active. FinCEN assumes that this 
same expectation applies to the 2021 survey, but recognizes that 
does not mean no such companies were included in the state 
statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN considered whether the exemption categories were likely to 
overlap, and therefore included counts of the same entities that would 
result in a duplicative subtraction. For example: A variety of 
entities, such as public utilities, securities reporting issuers, and 
brokers or 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.\317\ Another scenario 
could be that the exemption estimates include entities that are not in 
the IACA data (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ In the NPRM, FinCEN listed an example of an overlap as 
insurance companies and state-licensed insurance producers. One 
commenter noted that such an overlap is highly unlikely to occur. 
FinCEN concurs with the commenter's statement and no longer cites 
this as example; however, other exemptions may still overlap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimating the precise amount 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.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this analysis, FinCEN estimates that the total number of 
existing exempt entities as of 2024 is approximately 4,024,577. 
Subtracting this number from the estimate of 36,581,506 total existing 
entities as of 2024, FinCEN estimates that there are 32,556,929 
entities that will meet the definition of a reporting company as of 
2024, excluding exemptions. To estimate new exempt companies annually, 
FinCEN multiplied the estimate of new companies annually, 5,616,362, by 
the overall ratio of existing exempt entities to total existing 
entities from the calculations based on IACA data (4,024,577/
36,581,506). The resulting estimate of new exempt entities is 
approximately 617,894. Therefore, FinCEN estimates that there will be 
4,998,468 new entities per year that meet the definition of reporting 
company, excluding exemptions.
    As discussed in the cost analysis, to estimate annual costs of the 
rule's requirements, FinCEN assumed a distribution of reporting 
companies' beneficial ownership structure complexity. The 2020 ABS--
Characteristics of Businesses survey provides the number of owners for 
employer firms and was identified as the best source for an estimated 
distribution of reporting companies' beneficial ownership structure 
because of its focus on U.S. entities.\319\ The survey's data show that 
58.96 percent of respondent employer firms were owned by a single 
person. Further, 95.09 percent of all respondents reported under 4 
owners (i.e., 58.96 percent of respondents indicated 1 owner plus 36.13 
percent of respondents indicated 2 to 4 owners). The assumption that 
the majority of reporting companies will have a simple structure is 
further supported by the Nonemployer Statistics: 2019 Table, which 
shows that 87 percent of the approximately 27 million nonemployer firms 
were considered sole-proprietorships, which includes single-owner 
LLCs.\320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ In contrast, the NPRM included an estimated distribution 
of beneficial owners per report that relied upon UK entity data.
    \320\ Although the Nonemployer Statistics: 2019 Table had a 
higher percentage of likely simple structures for the purpose of a 
distribution, FinCEN elected to use the lower percentage to ensure a 
conservative final cost estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of estimating total cost, FinCEN applied the following 
distribution based on the 2020 ABS--Characteristics of Businesses 
survey data: 59 percent of reporting companies will have a ``simple 
structure'' (i.e., one beneficial owner and the same person is the 
company applicant), 36.1 percent of reporting companies will have an 
``intermediate structure'' (i.e., four beneficial owners and one 
company applicant), and 4.9 percent of reporting companies will have a 
``complex structure'' (i.e., 8 beneficial owners and two company 
applicants).\321\ The

[[Page 59569]]

estimated distribution and number of reported persons is summarized in 
Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \321\ The U.S. Census Bureau's 2020 ABS--Characteristics of 
Businesses data show that 58.96 percent of reporting employer firms 
had 1 owner. FinCEN used this percentage as a proxy to estimate the 
percentage of reporting companies with a simple structure. The ABS 
data show that 36.13 percent of reporting employer firms had 2 to 4 
owners, and FinCEN used this percentage as a proxy to estimate the 
percentage of reporting companies with an intermediate structure. 
The ABS data show that 4.9 percent of reporting employer firms had 
either 5 to 10 owners (1.7 percent), 11 or more owners (0.63 
percent), are ``business owned by a parent company, estate, trust, 
or other entity'' (1.97 percent), or have an unknown number of 
owners (0.62 percent). FinCEN used this percentage as a proxy to 
estimate the percentage of reporting companies with a complex 
structure. The distribution used by FinCEN is based on a 
consolidated version of this distribution, simplified for ease of 
the analysis. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Annual Business Survey 
(ABS)--Characteristics of Businesses, last updated Oct. 26, 2021, 
available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/econ/abs/2020-abs-characteristics-of-businesses.html.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE22.002

Costs of Initial Report Determination and Filing
    FinCEN assumes that each reporting company will file one initial 
BOI report. Given the implementation period of one year to comply with 
the rule for entities that were created 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 will submit 
their initial BOI reports in Year 1, totaling 32,556,929 reports. While 
new reporting companies may be created during this year as well, FinCEN 
notes that some existing companies will dissolve and not file within 
the first year, though FinCEN does not account for dissolutions in the 
analysis. Additionally, FinCEN applied a 6.83 percent growth factor 
each year since the date of the underlying source (2020) through 2024 
(i.e., Year 1 of the rule) that would account for the creation of new 
entities until the implementation of the rule. In Year 2 and 
thereafter, FinCEN estimates that the number of new initial BOI reports 
will be fixed at 4,998,468, which is the same estimate as the number of 
new entities per year that meet the definition of reporting company in 
2024.\322\ Such entities will have 30 days to file an initial report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ For analysis purposes, FinCEN assumes that the number of 
new entities per year from years 2 through 10 will be the same as 
the 2024 new entity estimate, which accounts for a growth factor of 
13.1 percent per year from the date of the underlying source (2020) 
through 2024. Annually thereafter, FinCEN assumes no change in the 
number of new entities. FinCEN provides an alternative cost analysis 
in the conclusion section where the 13.1 percent growth factor 
continues throughout the entire 10-year time horizon of the analysis 
(i.e., through 2033). However, this growth factor is possibly an 
overestimate given that it is a based on a relatively narrow 
timeframe of data (two years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments to the NPRM, FinCEN includes herein a 
detailed discussion of the steps related to the filing of an initial 
BOI report and the related time burden and cost of each step. The PRA 
analysis in the NPRM proposed the following activity and average time 
burden breakdown for initial BOI reports:
     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;
     70 minutes in total.
    A few commenters stated that this estimate was too short and 
proposed additional activities that should be considered as part of the 
cost of filing an initial BOI report. Commenters also proposed that 
different levels of employees, and subsequently differing wage levels, 
will participate in the process and should be accounted for in the 
burden. Commenters pointed to the penalty provisions as incentives to 
consult with professionals prior to filing. Further, the rule requires 
that those filing BOI reports on behalf of the reporting company 
certify that the report is true, correct, and complete, which may 
increase the time burden associated with the filing requirement. FinCEN 
considers these points and adjusts the time burden estimate 
accordingly.
    Considering the comments and the rule, it is apparent that the 
burden and costs associated with filing initial BOI reports will vary 
depending on the complexity of the reporting company's structure. 
FinCEN contends, as stated in the NPRM, that for some reporting 
companies this will be a minimal burden because the structure of the 
reporting company will be simple.\323\ For example, an LLC could have 
one beneficial owner, who self-registered the entity and is therefore 
the company applicant. The same person filing the initial BOI report 
would, with minimal burden, be able to fill out the report using their 
own personal information that is readily available to them. However, 
entities with more complex structures will have an increased level of 
burden associated with applying the rule to the company's structure and 
collecting identifying information from multiple people. For example, a 
corporation could have four beneficial owners with ownership interests, 
four beneficial owners with substantial control (consider a corporation 
with a CEO, CFO, COO, and general counsel, each of which do not hold 25 
percent or greater ownership interests), and two company applicants 
(consider a law firm partner who controlled the filing of incorporation 
documents, and a person at the law firm who filed the documents). An 
employee of the corporation may file the report to FinCEN, with the 
CEO's review, and may analyze how the rule will apply to the company's 
structure, identify who needs to be reported, and coordinate the 
collection of identifying information from the nine required people. 
These two examples of simple versus complex structures result in very 
different burden estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ One commenter ``disagreed vehemently'' with this 
assertion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN assumed in the NPRM that all reporting companies would be 
small businesses, in part due to the fact that large operating 
companies are exempt. However, FinCEN acknowledges that a small 
business may not always have a simple reporting structure for purposes 
of this requirement. FinCEN therefore estimates a range of burden and 
costs associated with filing an initial BOI report to account for the 
likely variance among reporting companies. The lower bound of the range 
assumes a reporting company with a simple structure and

[[Page 59570]]

one individual to report where this same individual also fills out the 
BOI form. The upper bound of the range assumes a reporting company with 
a complex structure and ten individuals to report, in which multiple 
employees and persons may be involved in the filing activities. 
Including this consideration in the cost of filing initial BOI reports 
departs from the NPRM, in which the number of beneficial owners per 
report was considered in the analysis of updated BOI reports only.
    A commenter argued that 15-25 beneficial owners could be required 
to be reported per company given the proposed definition. FinCEN 
believes that, given the types of entities that fall under the 
reporting company definition, such a high number of reported 
individuals would be an outlier scenario. FinCEN does not intend for 
the upper bound selected here to imply it is the maximum number of such 
persons that may be reported; there could indeed be reports with over 8 
beneficial owners, and the rule does not put a cap on the number of 
beneficial owners to be reported. However, FinCEN believes those 
structures are rare and only a small subset of the entire population of 
reporting companies. This assumption is supported by the available data 
sources used to derive the distribution of reporting companies' 
beneficial ownership structures. Specifically, a strong majority of 
over 95 percent of reporting employer firms in the 2020 ABS--
Characteristics of Businesses survey stated they had less than four 
owners and 87 percent of nonemployer firms in the Nonemployer 
Statistics: 2019 Table were considered sole proprietorships, which 
included single-owner LLCs.
    This assumption is also supported by available data from the 
Federal Reserve Banks' Small Business Credit Survey (SBCS) regarding 
the ways in which small businesses obtain financial services.\324\ The 
SBCS data for both employer and nonemployer based small businesses 
indicate that very few of the surveyed entities obtain financing 
through ``other'' means, such as through farm-lending institutions, 
friends or family or the owner, nonprofit organizations, private 
investors, and government entities.\325\ According to data from recent 
years, at most 5 percent of surveyed firms in a given year obtained 
financing through other means.\326\ These findings hold regardless of 
number of employees for employer firms and for revenues of both 
employer and nonemployer firms. Because most small surveyed businesses 
do not seek financial services through non-traditional routes, FinCEN 
believes this supports the assumption that reporting companies will 
have a simple beneficial ownership structure from a financial 
stakeholders' perspective. Therefore, FinCEN believes the selected 
range is appropriate in estimating an average overall burden for the 
requirement. FinCEN uses a lower and upper bound estimate for each 
burden activity associated with filing initial BOI reports. FinCEN then 
estimates an average of these two scenarios to account for 
intermediately structured entities, assumed to have four beneficial 
owners and one company applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \324\ See Federal Reserve Banks, Small Business Credit Survey 
2022 Report on Employer Firms (May 2022), available at https://www.fedsmallbusiness.org/survey/2022/report-on-employer-firms and 
Small Business Credit Survey 2021 Report on Nonemployer Firms 
(2021), available at https://www.fedsmallbusiness.org/survey/2021/report-on-nonemployer-firms. The data is accessible on both sites 
through a ``download data'' link.
    \325\ The other response options in the survey to the question 
of the primary source of financial services for these firms were: 
alternative financial source, community development financial 
institution (CDFI), credit union, finance company, financial 
services company, fintech lender, larger bank, and small bank. The 
definitions of the options, including ``other'', may be found in the 
data's ``Definitions'' sheet.
    \326\ According to the 2021 SBCS employer firms data, 1 percent 
of firms obtained financial services from other means. According to 
the 2020 SBCS nonemployer firms data, 5 percent of firms obtained 
financial services from other means. These responses may be found in 
the data's ``Employer firms'' and ``Nonemployer firms'' sheets, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first step to complete a BOI report remains to read the form 
and understand the requirement, with slight amendments to account for 
reading other documents in addition to the form and analyzing the 
definition of reporting company. FinCEN takes the point raised by a 
commenter that some reporting companies may, as part of this activity, 
read the final rule. Given the length of the final rule, FinCEN concurs 
that in those instances it will take an individual longer than 30 
minutes to complete this step. FinCEN anticipates issuing guidance 
documents to assist with this step that FinCEN estimates will lessen 
the burden associated with understanding the requirement. The commenter 
also stated that determining whether the entity is a reporting company 
and having another individual consider this conclusion and concur will 
also add time to this activity.\327\ FinCEN assumes that the time 
reporting companies spend on this step will vary based on the 
complexity of their structure. While all companies will need to read 
the form and understand the requirement, more complexly organized 
entities are more likely to closely read the final rule, conduct an 
analysis of whether they are a reporting company, and request secondary 
review of this determination. Therefore, FinCEN estimates a range 
between 40 and 300 minutes (40 minutes to 5 hours) for this step. The 
lower bound is double the estimate in the NPRM. FinCEN believes this 
increase is appropriate given the points raised by the commenter about 
the time to review the final rule and/or FinCEN guidance documents, in 
addition to the form, and to analyze whether an entity is a reporting 
company. The upper bound is a half-hour higher than the timeframe 
proposed by the commenter; FinCEN believes 5 hours is an appropriate 
upper bound to account for the length of the final rule and review of 
future guidance documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \327\ The commenter also specified which role in a company may 
perform such activities; FinCEN considers these points in its 
discussion of the hourly wage estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second step to complete a BOI report was slightly amended from 
the description in the NPRM. In addition to identifying and collecting 
information about beneficial owners and the company applicant, this 
information must also be reviewed. This amendment reflects a 
commenter's suggestion that the review of collected information should 
be accounted for, a detail which FinCEN agrees should be explicitly 
stated. Again, FinCEN assumes that the time reporting companies spend 
on this step will vary based on their structure. For a reporting 
company with a simple structure, where the person who completed the 
first step is the owner, this individual will already understand that 
the requirement only applies to their own information, and therefore 
will only need to collect the required information about themselves and 
their company, all of which should be readily available. FinCEN also 
anticipates issuing guidance documents to assist in simplifying such a 
determination for such entities. The rule does not require existing 
entities to identify a company applicant, which will lessen the burden 
of this activity for many reporting companies. In a more complex 
reporting company structure, multiple people may need to analyze who 
will meet the definition of beneficial owner and company applicant for 
their company and coordinate with these persons to collect their 
information for the BOI report. This scenario will be more burdensome; 
one commenter proposed 3 hours to determine beneficial ownership. 
Therefore, FinCEN estimates a range of 30 to 240 minutes (0.5 to 4

[[Page 59571]]

hours) to perform this step. The lower bound estimate is consistent 
with the estimate in the NPRM, while the upper bound incorporates the 3 
hour estimate proposed by a commenter to identify beneficial owners, 
with an additional hour to account for collection and review of 
information from beneficial owners and company applicants.
    The third step to complete a BOI report is to fill out and file the 
report. This step will require attaching an image of an acceptable 
identifying document for each beneficial owner and company applicant. 
FinCEN believes that the mechanics of filling out the report, including 
uploading attachments, will remain a relatively minor burden activity. 
This is partly because the other steps already account for 
understanding the form and collecting the necessary information. One 
comment noted that FinCEN did not account for acquiring, installing, 
and utilizing technology and systems to make this filing. The filing 
method will be accessible via the internet and will not require any 
additional acquisition or installation of technology by reporting 
companies, as FinCEN assumes that such technology is accessible to 
reporting companies. FinCEN believes that the time burden estimated in 
this step accounts for utilizing this technology to make this filing. 
The time burden to fill out the report may vary depending on the number 
of persons included. Therefore, FinCEN estimates a range of 20 to 110 
minutes for this step. The lower bound estimate is consistent with the 
estimate in the NPRM, and assumes that it will take 20 minutes to fill 
out the report with information about the reporting company and one 
person. To estimate the upper bound, FinCEN assumed 10 additional 
minutes each to fill out the report for 9 additional persons (totaling 
10 persons), resulting in 110 minutes.
    Commenters raised other costs associated with filing initial BOI 
reports outside of these steps. The most frequently raised other cost 
was the need for reporting companies to hire professional expertise to 
assist in these steps, which was a point FinCEN specifically requested 
comment on in the NPRM.\328\ The NPRM did not include the cost of 
hiring professionals in its cost estimate, but noted that FinCEN is 
aware that some reporting companies may seek legal or other 
professional advice in complying with the BOI requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ FinCEN sought 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. See 86 FR 69953 (Dec. 8, 2021). One 
comment stated that FinCEN's question to commenters in the NPRM on 
this topic is ``off the mark'' for any entities that are not 
businesses at all, as many entities engage in no interstate 
commerce, and that the question fails to refer to large businesses 
that do not fit within the exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the comments received on this topic, FinCEN adds an estimate 
for professional expertise to the cost of initial BOI reports. FinCEN 
again assesses that a range is most appropriate for estimating this 
cost, as some entities may not consult professionals and therefore not 
incur this cost. As stated in the NPRM, FinCEN intends that the 
reporting requirement will be accessible to the personnel of reporting 
companies who will need to comply with these regulations and will not 
require specific professional skills or expertise to prepare the 
report. However, FinCEN concurs with comments that it is likely that 
some reporting companies will hire or consult professional experts. 
FinCEN also assesses that this likelihood increases for more complex 
reporting company structures.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \329\ It may also be the case that such reporting companies with 
a more complex structure have in-house professional expertise that 
may assist with the requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters provided perspectives on the amount of time and hourly 
rate to consider for hiring professional expertise, which most 
commenters identified as lawyers or accountants. One commenter provided 
an estimate of 2 hours and another commenter provided an estimated 
range of 3-5 hours. FinCEN is adopting the high end of this range 
proposed by the second commenter of 5 hours. The hourly estimate takes 
into account the time for professional review of the entity's ownership 
and control structure and communications with the reporting company to 
ensure accurate understanding and filing of the report.
    A commenter recommended a per hour rate estimate of $400, which was 
based on a recent SEC PRA analysis.\330\ FinCEN generally agrees with 
the commenter's reasoning and therefore has adopted this estimate as 
part of the estimated range of cost associated with this requirement. 
However, FinCEN notes that this upper bound estimate potentially 
overestimates the cost to retain professional expertise, as the 
preparation and filing of reports with the SEC generally requires 
specialized knowledge of securities regulation. Although the completion 
of the BOI report is a new requirement for professionals such as 
lawyers and accountants to become familiar with, FinCEN does not view 
the content of the report to be as specialized. While $400 an hour may 
be an overestimation of the cost of professional services, FinCEN is 
incorporating it as an upper bound estimate given the feedback from 
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \330\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Holding Foreign 
Companies Accountable Act Disclosure Release No. 34-93701 (Dec. 2, 
2021), p. 56, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2021/34-93701.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As reflected in Table 2, the total dollar estimate of the upper 
bound range of the cost of professional expertise is $2,000, which is 
based on the estimated 5 hours at an hourly rate of $400 per hour to 
complete an initial BOI report. FinCEN anticipates that this per 
reporting company upper bound cost will decrease over time for new 
reporting companies as professionals become familiarized with the rule 
and thus more efficient and effective in helping clients comply with 
the rule.
    In the NPRM, the hourly wage rate estimated for each reporting 
requirement was an average cost of $27.07 per hour, the mean hourly 
wage for all employees from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 
May 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates report. 
The foregoing rate was then multiplied by a private industry benefits 
factor of 1.42 \331\ to estimate a fully loaded wage rate of $38.44 per 
hour. Commenters were critical of FinCEN's selection of the ``all 
employees'' \332\ wage estimate used to calculate hourly wage rates, 
and expressed that such estimates were far less than what may 
reasonably be expected. Specifically, commenters criticized FinCEN's 
notion that ordinary employees, with no specialized knowledge or 
training, would be capable of filing the initial reports. Multiple 
commenters expressed that reporting companies will rely on, at least in 
part, managers and corporate officers to submit initial filings. FinCEN 
finds this argument persuasive and has amended estimated wage and fully 
loaded wage rates to reflect this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \331\ The ratio between benefits and wages for private industry 
workers is $11.42 (hourly benefits)/$27.19 (hourly wages) = 0.42, as 
of March 2022. The benefit factor is 1 plus the benefit/wages ratio, 
or 1.42. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation: Private industry dataset, (March 2022), 
available at https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec/ecec-private-dataset.xlsx.
    \332\ The proposed rule selected an ``all employees'' estimate 
to reflect FinCEN's goal to develop the BOI reporting requirement so 
that a range of businesses' ordinary employees, with no specialized 
knowledge or training may file reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN has increased the estimated base wage rate of $27.07 to 
approximately $39.97 per hour.\333\ This

[[Page 59572]]

updated estimate derives from the BLS May 2021 Wage Estimates \334\ and 
represents the average reported hourly wage rates of three major 
occupational groups assessed to be most likely responsible for 
executing filings on behalf of reporting companies: management; 
business and financial operations; and office and administrative 
support. The management group was included to account for feedback from 
commenters that senior officers and other management roles are likely 
to be involved in the filing activities, such as reviewing the form 
before it is filed. FinCEN concurs with this point from commenters and 
has therefore updated the wage estimate to account for such 
occupations.\335\ Additionally, FinCEN assesses it is appropriate to 
include the occupational groups for business and financial operations 
and office and administrative support to account for a mix of 
specialized employees within a reporting company that may assist in the 
filing. FinCEN assesses that such employees are likely to include 
business or financial operations specialists that assist with 
conducting the reporting company's regulatory requirements, or office 
and administrative employees that assist with the reporting company's 
paperwork and other administrative tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ FinCEN assumes that the fully loaded hourly wage estimate 
calculated in this analysis is the average internal hourly cost to 
entities to comply with the rule. However, FinCEN recognizes that in 
practice, there is heterogeneity across entities for a number of 
reasons including but not limited to number and expertise of 
employees, and the geographical location, profitability, and age of 
the entity.
    \334\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates United States (May 2021), available at 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
    \335\ The wage rate that FinCEN included in the NPRM for ``all 
employees'' did include management occupations as part of this rate. 
However, by narrowing the occupational groups in the final RIA, 
FinCEN's analysis gives more weight to the role managers (and other 
specific occupational groups) will have in the reporting 
requirement. FinCEN believes this change is appropriate given the 
feedback received from commenters on the wage estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN reviewed and considered whether all major occupational 
groups should be included in this wage estimate. In particular, FinCEN 
considered whether legal occupations should be included. However, 
FinCEN accounts for the cost of legal (and other professional) 
expertise in an additional cost, a range of $0 to 2,000 per reporting 
company. FinCEN believes that this is a better way to account for the 
cost of legal expertise for this filing requirement because it reflects 
the billable rate that reporting companies are likely to pay for such 
services, rather than the profession's hourly wage rate,\336\ and 
therefore more accurately estimate the cost to the reporting company. 
Regarding the other major occupational groups,\337\ FinCEN acknowledges 
that individuals from such occupations may file BOI reports, given that 
entities in such industries may be reporting companies. However, the 
other occupational groups are not likely to be involved in the filing 
of a BOI report by virtue of their occupation, as opposed to the three 
groups that were selected.\338\ As stated in the NPRM, those filing BOI 
reports on reporting companies' behalves could work across all 
industries (thus the reliance on the ``all employees'' wage estimate). 
However, FinCEN proposes a more specific approach here, based on the 
type of labor likely to be involved in the report filing according to 
NPRM comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \336\ FinCEN's estimate assumes a $400 per hour rate for such 
expertise. As a point of comparison, the BLS mean hourly wage for 
the legal occupational group is $54.38.
    \337\ The other major occupational groups are the following: 
computer and mathematical; architecture and engineering; life, 
physical, and social science; community and social service; 
educational instruction and library; arts, design, entertainment, 
sports, and media; healthcare practitioners and technical; 
healthcare support; protective services; food preparation and 
serving related; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance; 
personal care and service; sales and related; farming, fishing, and 
forestry; construction and extraction; installation, maintenance, 
and repair; production; transportation and material moving. See U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and 
Wage Estimates United States (May 2021), available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
    \338\ For example, a healthcare worker at a medical office is 
unlikely to be involved in the filing of the office's BOI report 
unless that healthcare worker is also the senior officer (or owner) 
of the office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The calculated average hourly wage of the above-mentioned three 
occupation groups is $39.97.\339\ Multiplying the foregoing estimated 
hourly wage rate by the private industry benefits factor of 1.42 
340 341 produces a fully loaded hourly wage rate of 
approximately $56.76. The wage rate is applied to all reporting 
companies, regardless of the estimated beneficial ownership structure, 
in order to reflect that the role of the individual filing in all 
scenarios could include a mix of managerial, specialized, and 
administrative individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \339\ FinCEN recognizes that in practice, the hourly wage will 
vary across reporting companies for a number of factors including, 
but not limited to, number and expertise of employees, and the 
geographical location, profitability, and age of the entity. FinCEN 
considered using an average of the lowest 10th percentile and then 
of the highest 90th percentile of these three wage categories, as 
provided by the BLS, rather than the $39.97 used for this analysis. 
This resulted in an hourly wage rate of $18.42 at the 10th 
percentile and $46.41 at the 90th percentile of the wage 
distribution. However, FinCEN chose to use an average of the 50th 
percentile (mean) wage rate of $39.97 due to a lack of data on the 
likely underlying wage distribution across reporting companies.
    \340\ The ratio between benefits and wages for private industry 
workers is $11.42 (hourly benefits)/$27.19 (hourly wages) = 0.42, as 
of March 2022. The benefit factor is 1 plus the benefit/wages ratio, 
or 1.42. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Cost for 
Employee Compensation: Private industry dataset, March 2022, 
available at https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec/ecec-private-dataset.xlsx.
    \341\ The NPRM included a sensitivity analysis of selecting a 
higher benefits factor of 2 based on 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. 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. FinCEN did 
not apply this alternative in the RIA because no comments regarding 
the benefits factor were received and because FinCEN is concerned 
about the applicability of this benefits factor in this rulemaking. 
The benefits factor included herein applies broadly to private 
industry workers, rather than only those related to health and human 
services, which is more appropriate given the affected public for 
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table shows the estimated cost of filing initial BOI 
reports per reporting company, which FinCEN estimates to be a range of 
$85.14-2,614.87 per reporting company.

[[Page 59573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE22.003

    In assessing the total cost of initial BOI reports in Year 1, 
FinCEN applies the distribution summarized in Table 1, which assumes 
that for reporting purposes, 59 percent of reporting companies have a 
simple structure, 36.1 percent have an intermediate structure, and 4.9 
percent have a complex structure. The range of total costs in Year 1, 
assuming for the lower bound that all reporting companies are simple 
structure and assuming for the upper bound that all reporting companies 
are complex structures is $2.8 billion-$85.1 billion. Applying the 
distribution of reporting companies' structure, FinCEN calculates total 
costs in Year 1 of initial BOI reports to be $21.7 billion. In Year 2 
and onwards, in which FinCEN assumes that initial BOI reports will be 
filed by newly created entities, the range of total costs is $425.6 
million-$13.1 billion annually. Applying the reporting companies' 
structure distribution, the estimated total cost of initial BOI reports 
annually in Year 2 and onwards is $3.3 billion.
    FinCEN considered a commenter's statement that exempt entities will 
incur costs of undergoing the first step of the initial BOI reporting 
burden, which is to read FinCEN BOI documents, understand the 
requirement, and analyze the reporting company definition in order to 
initially confirm and understand their exempt status. FinCEN estimates 
that this will mostly be a de minimis cost for exempt entities. Such 
entities will likely only review the exemption category that applies to 
them, understand the exemption status, and not undergo further 
analysis. FinCEN agrees that some exempt entities may incur more 
substantive additional costs in understanding their exemption status, 
including time burden to read the final rule and guidance documents, 
analyze their entity's structure in relation to the exemptions, and 
possibly consult with professional experts. However, FinCEN believes 
such costs will apply to only a small portion of exempt entities. 
Further, the costs associated with this analysis will only be 
applicable initially and once the entity understands its applicability 
to a particular exemption, the cost associated with this analysis will 
be de minimis over time. In some cases, such ongoing analysis could be 
more costly. For example, an entity that just meets the criteria for 
the large operating company exemption because the company has 21 full-
time employees may engage in regular analysis to ensure that the entity 
continues to meet the exemption (i.e., in the event the employee count 
lowers to 19 for more than 30 days). FinCEN asserts that such scenarios 
will not apply broadly to the exempt entity populations.
    The rule also includes specific special reporting rules. The 
foreign pooled investment vehicle 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 report that provides identification information of an 
individual that exercises substantial control over the pooled 
investment vehicle. In contrast to the NPRM, FinCEN is including the 
burden of such reports as part of the estimate of the burden for BOI 
reports. In the NPRM, FinCEN assessed that such initial reports would 
result in 40 minutes of burden (30 minutes less than the NPRM's 
estimate for filing initial BOI reports) in part due to the requirement 
that only one beneficial owner be identified. However, the updated 
approach to the burden estimate of filing initial BOI reports considers 
additional burden activities that foreign pooled investment vehicles 
may undertake and accounts for a low end range of one beneficial owner 
to report. Therefore, FinCEN assumes that the burden for initial BOI 
reports will be applicable to such entities, and a separate burden 
estimate is not calculated.
    Finally, some of the special reporting rules may lessen the burden 
of initial report filings. The special rule for reporting companies 
owned by exempt entities requires such reporting companies to report 
the exempt entities' name, which will lessen the burden. Another 
special reporting rule states that existing entities do not need to 
report company applicant information. FinCEN does not separately 
calculate how much burden may be lessened by such special rules, 
although FinCEN considers what the cost of reporting company applicants 
for existing entities would have been in an alternative scenario.
Costs of Updated BOI Reports and Other Ongoing Costs
    The rule requires that updated BOI be reported to FinCEN within 30 
calendar days after the date on which there is any change with respect 
to any information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning the 
reporting company or the beneficial owners of the reporting company. 
This includes any change with respect to who is a beneficial owner of a 
reporting company and any change with respect to information

[[Page 59574]]

reported for any particular beneficial owner.\342\ In order to estimate 
the costs of updated BOI reports, FinCEN first estimated the number of 
updated reports a reporting company will likely file in a year and then 
considered the associated costs with the updated report 
requirement.\343\ Commenters suggested FinCEN provide more clarity and 
a more accurate estimation as to the ongoing costs to small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2).
    \343\ The NPRM included a summary of information received from 
DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. See 86 FR 69961 
(Dec, 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN first estimates the number of updated reports per month 
based on the probability of the most likely triggers for an update 
occurring. FinCEN's assessment indicates that the three most likely 
triggers for updates to BOI reports are: (1) change in address of a 
beneficial owner or company applicant; (2) death of a beneficial owner; 
or (3) a management decision resulting in a change in beneficial owner. 
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 assessed that these changes will occur at a relatively 
minor rate compared to the three most likely triggers.
    Commenters included examples of other triggering events. For 
example, one commenter noted that although a renewed driver's license 
may not include a changed identification number, the image of the 
driver's license would change and an update would therefore be 
required. However, as noted in Section III.B.v. above, a change in the 
details of a document's image that do not relate to a change in 
information to be reported in 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii)(A-D) on the 
identification document will not trigger a requirement to update the 
image. FinCEN assesses that the rate at which such a number would 
change is not significant. For example, license renewal cycles vary 
state to state, which range from 2-4 years (Vermont) \344\ to 12 years 
(Arizona).\345\ Given that the renewal cycles are many years in length, 
updates would be infrequent. Similarly, the U.S. passport renewal cycle 
is generally 10 years. Given the infrequency of this update, FinCEN 
believes that providing an updated passport number and image of the 
same would not be considered a ``most likely trigger.'' FinCEN notes 
that the coverage of convertible instruments under the beneficial owner 
definition would result in updates, but FinCEN believes such events are 
captured in the estimate of a likelihood of a management decision 
resulting in a change in beneficial ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ See Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles, Application for 
License/Permit, p. 3, available at https://dmv.vermont.gov/sites/dmv/files/documents/VL-021-License_Application.pdf.
    \345\ See Arizona Department of Transportation, License 
Information FAQs, available at https://azdot.gov/motor-vehicles/faq-motor-vehicle-division/driver-services-faq/license-information-faq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No commenters proposed alternative ``most likely trigger events'' 
in order to estimate the number of updated reports. Therefore, FinCEN 
retains the ``most likely trigger events'' from the NPRM, with updates 
for more recent data sources and changes accounting for the final 
rule's elimination of the requirement to update information for company 
applicants. FinCEN also retains its assumption that updated reports 
stating that a previous reporting company is now eligible for an 
exemption would be negligible burden and has not separately estimated 
the number of reports that result from such a change. Updates are also 
required by the rule when a minor child that is a beneficial owner 
reaches the age of majority; similarly, updated reports based on such 
an event are not separately estimated.
    To estimate the likelihood of the following, and thus updated BOI 
reports on a monthly basis (given that the rule requires updates within 
30 calendar days), FinCEN approximated probabilities for these causes 
from other sources:
    1. Change in address of a beneficial owner: According to the Census 
Bureau's Geographic Mobility data, 27,059,000 people one year or older 
moved from 2020-2021.\346\ This is approximately 8.16 percent of the 
2021 U.S. population.\347\ Therefore, FinCEN assesses that 8.16 percent 
of beneficial owners may have a change in address within a year, 
resulting in an updated BOI report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \346\ 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: 2020-2021--United States, available at 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/demo/geographic-mobility/cps-2021.html. The total movers, in thousands, is 27,059.
    \347\ The U.S. population on July 7, 2021 was 332,861,350 
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: (27,059,000/
331,893,745) x 100 = 8.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Death: FinCEN utilized data published in the Social Security 
Administration's 2019 Period Life Table to estimate this 
probability.\348\ FinCEN expanded the range of ages to 18 to 90 \349\ 
and calculated the median probability of death for males (0.0070) and 
females (0.0042). FinCEN then averaged these numbers, resulting in a 
0.56 percent probability of death within a year.\350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ See Social Security Administration, Actuarial Life Table, 
Period Life Table, 2019 (2022) available at https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html.
    \349\ FinCEN used this age range due to the special rule for 
minor children whereby the information of a parent or guardian may 
be reported in lieu of information of a minor child. 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(3)(i). This is a slight departure from the NPRM, which 
used the age range of 30 to 90.
    \350\ The rule states that an updated report will be required 
upon the settlement of a beneficial owner's estate upon death. 
Therefore, the timing of the updated report will not necessarily 
coincide with the timing of death, but the probability is still 
applicable for estimation purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. As in the NPRM, FinCEN assumes that 10 
percent of beneficial owners may change within a year due to management 
decisions.\351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \351\ FinCEN did not receive comments stating that this 
assumption is incorrect, or comments that provided sources to use 
for such an estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Totaling these estimated probabilities, there is an approximately 
19 percent probability of a change for a given beneficial owner 
resulting in an updated BOI filing within a year.\352\ FinCEN divided 
this by 12 to find the monthly probability of an update: 1.56 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \352\ 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 (Mar. 2019), p. 16, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/822823/review-implementation-psc-register.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NRPM, FinCEN relied on data published in the UK in a 2019 
study on their BOI reporting requirements and applied a distribution of 
the estimated number of beneficial owners per report to estimate the 
number of updated reports per year. FinCEN declines to rely on that 
data in the RIA, and instead utilizes the reporting company structure 
distribution in Table 1, applied to initial reports. This ensures that 
the RIA is consistent and also that the underlying data source is based 
on trends in U.S., rather than UK, entities. This distribution assumes 
that 59 percent of

[[Page 59575]]

reporting companies have 1 beneficial owner; 36.1 percent have 4 
beneficial owners; and 4.9 percent have 8 beneficial owners.\353\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \353\ FinCEN estimates 4 individuals for reporting companies 
with intermediate structures and 8 individuals for reporting 
companies with complex structures (as opposed to 5 and 10 
individuals in the example for initial BOI reports) as updated 
information for company applications is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN utilized the same methodology as used in the NPRM to 
calculate the number of updated reports. To estimate Year 1 updated 
reports, FinCEN assumed that \1/12\ of the initial reports that must be 
filed by reporting companies in existence on the effective date of the 
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-
(1-0.0.0156)[supcaret]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.\354\ 
This assumes that changes for a beneficial owner would be independent 
from changes for other beneficial owners of the same company. Table 3 
provides the estimated number of updated reports for the second month 
of implementation using the described methodology:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \354\ 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)[supcaret]2, etc.
    \355\ 0.59 x (32,556,929 x (\1/12\)) x (1-(1-0.0156)) = 24,973.
    \356\ 0.361 x (32, 56,929 x (\1/12\)) x (1-(1-
0.0156)[supcaret]4) = 59,705.
    \357\ 0.049 x (32,556,929 x (\1/12\)) x (1-(1-
0.0156)[supcaret]8) = 15,714.
    \358\ 24,973 + 59,705 + 15,714 = 100,392.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE22.004
    
    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 6,578,732 updated reports. Estimated monthly updated 
reports for all subsequent months were calculated using the same 
equation, but based off of all initial reports instead of a portion of 
them. This estimate is multiplied by 12 for an annual estimate of 
14,456,452 updated reports.
    In the NPRM, FinCEN estimated the number of updates to company 
applicant information on a monthly basis. The final rule does not 
require updates to company applicant information to be reported, 
therefore FinCEN has purposely left such an estimate out of the RIA. 
FinCEN discusses the cost of such a requirement in an alternative 
scenario.
    Having estimated the number of updated BOI reports, FinCEN 
estimates the cost of those reports. The PRA analysis in the NPRM 
proposed the following activity and average time burden breakdown for 
updated BOI reports:
     20 minutes to identify and collect information about 
beneficial owners or applicants;
     10 minutes to fill out and file the update;
     30 minutes in total.
    Given the discussion of burden related to initial BOI reports, and 
given the comments received, FinCEN changed this time estimate and 
provided a range based on beneficial ownership structure, as set out in 
Table 4.
    Consistent with the NPRM, FinCEN did not provide a time estimate 
for reading the form, understanding the requirements, and analyzing the 
definition of reporting company during the updated report process. 
These tasks will have already been performed as part of the completion 
of an initial BOI report and therefore are not necessary at this stage, 
as the reporting company will already understand the requirements and 
definition of reporting company. The only tasks required will be 
identifying, collecting, and reviewing any updated information and then 
filling out and filing the updated report.
    The first step to complete an updated BOI report was slightly 
amended from that in the NPRM in two aspects. First, consistent with 
the amendment to completing this second step for an initial BOI report, 
in addition to identifying and collecting information about beneficial 
owners, this information must also be reviewed. Second, updates to 
company applicant information will not be included in the step, as such 
updates are no longer required. The time estimate to identify, collect, 
and review information about beneficial owners for reporting companies 
with simple structures remains 20 minutes as was estimated in the NPRM. 
This time estimate is 10 minutes less for updated reports than it is 
for this step in initial reports because the initial analysis to 
identify beneficial owners is not required. Similar to simply 
structured entities, complex entities will not need to analyze the

[[Page 59576]]

definition of beneficial owner. FinCEN therefore estimates an hour (60 
minutes) for such entities to complete this step.\359\ This estimate is 
consistent with the statement in the initial BOI reports section that 
it will take an hour for such entities to collect and review beneficial 
ownership information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \359\ FinCEN acknowledges that when a reporting company goes 
through a significant restructuring or refinancing, the time 
required to identify, collect, and review information about 
beneficial owners may be more than this estimate. However, FinCEN 
expects this subset of reporting companies per year to be small 
relative to the total number of reporting companies that need to 
submit updated reports in a given year. Additionally, FinCEN 
believes such costs are likely accounted for in the professional 
expertise estimate included in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second step to complete an updated BOI report is to fill out 
and file the report. Consistent with filling out and filing initial BOI 
reports, this step will require attaching an image of an acceptable 
identifying document for each beneficial owner and company applicant. 
FinCEN increased the estimate for this step to align with the time 
estimate range of 20 to 110 minutes for filling out and filing initial 
BOI reports. The lower bound estimate is slightly higher than the 
estimate in the NPRM because it takes into account the expected 
functionality of the BOSS, which requires reporting companies to 
resubmit all information required in the report, not only the 
information that has changed. Reporting companies will have the option 
(though not a requirement) to save a PDF prior to submission of their 
BOI report to be used as a reference for future filings, which may 
lessen the burden for this step if companies reference the PDF to 
expedite re-populating any beneficial ownership information that has 
not changed.
    FinCEN adopted the fully loaded wage rate of $56.76 to the cost 
estimate for updated BOI reports, which is reflected in Table 4. 
Finally, to align with the initial BOI report cost estimate, FinCEN 
added a range of estimated costs for professional expertise to complete 
updated BOI reports. FinCEN provides a range of $0 to $400, which 
reflects an estimate of zero hours to 1 hour at a rate of $400 per 
hour. This is consistent with the hourly rate for professional 
expertise set out above for initial BOI reports. The upper bound 
estimate of $400 is lower than that for initial BOI reports because 
FinCEN assesses that professionals will most likely only be engaged in 
the event of a restructuring or refinancing of the reporting company 
and not when merely the information of a beneficial owner has changed. 
The updated report cost range is $37.84-560.81 per report.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE22.005

    In assessing the total cost of updated BOI reports in Year 1, 
FinCEN applies the distribution discussed above which assumes that for 
reporting purposes, 59 percent of reporting companies are a simple 
structure, 36.1 percent are an intermediate structure, and 4.9 percent 
are a complex structure. The range of total costs in Year 1, assuming 
for the lower bound that all reporting companies are simple structure 
and assuming for the upper bound that all reporting companies are 
complex structures, is $249 million-$3.7 billion. Applying the 
distribution of reporting companies' structure, FinCEN calculates total 
costs in Year 1 of updated BOI reports to be $1 billion. In Year 2 and 
thereafter, the range of total costs is $547 million-$8.1 billion 
annually. Applying the reporting companies' structure distribution, the 
estimated total cost of updated BOI reports annually in Year 2 and 
thereafter is $2.3 billion.
    The rule also requires that corrected reports be filed within 30 
calendar days after the date on which a reporting company becomes aware 
or has reason to know that reported information is inaccurate. FinCEN 
does not separately calculate the burden and costs of submitting a 
corrected report after inaccurate information was initially reported 
because FinCEN does not know how many corrections will need to be 
submitted in any given year. However, FinCEN acknowledges that filing 
corrected reports may result in reporting companies undertaking some of 
the burden activities required for initial and updated BOI reports, 
such as reaching out to obtain and review information and filing the 
report. However, FinCEN assesses that such activities may be less 
burdensome during the correction process, depending on the type of 
corrections being made to the report. For example, a correction to the 
spelling of a beneficial owner's name will likely result in minimal 
burden. However, a correction to the identity of a beneficial owner 
could result in more burden.
    Commenters requested that FinCEN provide more clarity on the 
ongoing costs to small businesses. One such ongoing cost may be 
monitoring for updated information. Commenters noted that reporting 
companies would bear a cost in monitoring for changes, such as in 
undertaking a monthly or recurring review, or checking with their 
beneficial owners to ensure that no reported information has changed. 
Reporting companies may also consider on a recurring basis whether or 
not they meet an exemption, given the requirement to submit an updated 
report if an entity becomes exempt. FinCEN anticipates such costs to be 
minimal. Based on the probabilities for

[[Page 59577]]

the three most likely triggers for an updated report, there is a 1.56 
percent anticipated change to a beneficial owner's information in a 
given month. FinCEN acknowledges that the amount of time a reporting 
company spends monitoring for updates is dependent upon the number of 
beneficial owners in its report. Based on this, a reporting company 
with a simple structure and one beneficial owner would spend less time 
monitoring each month than a reporting company with a complex structure 
and multiple beneficial owners. Considering both FinCEN's assumption 
that 59 percent of affected reporting companies will have simple 
structures and the estimated low probability of changes each month, 
FinCEN does not think the amount of time needed to perform this 
monitoring is significant for companies with either one or many 
beneficial owners.
    Another ongoing cost that commenters stated should be considered in 
the RIA is the cost of securing data collected for BOI reports, 
including images of identification documents, as well as the harms 
should such information not be kept secure. FinCEN anticipates that 
considerations regarding FinCEN's storage of the data will be discussed 
in the future rulemaking regarding access to BOI. FinCEN concurs with 
commenters that the theft of such data would result in substantial 
harms and costs. U.S. government resources are available to small 
businesses concerned about data security, which FinCEN expects is a 
concern for such businesses regardless of this requirement.\360\ FinCEN 
acknowledges that this requirement could heighten such concern and may 
result in potentially significant costs to businesses for securing the 
data and in increased identity theft risk to individuals in the event 
of a data breach, but does not have estimates for these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \360\ See Small Business Administration, Strengthen your 
cybersecurity, available at https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/manage-your-business/stay-safe-cybersecurity-threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of FinCEN Identifiers
    The rule would require the collection of information from 
individuals and reporting companies in order to issue them a FinCEN 
identifier. This is a voluntary collection. The individuals and 
reporting companies will provide the same information required pursuant 
to BOI reports in order to obtain a FinCEN identifier, and will be 
subject to the same update and correction requirements for such 
information.
    The affected parties of this collection would overlap somewhat with 
parties required to submit BOI reports, given that reporting companies 
may request FinCEN identifiers. For individuals requesting FinCEN 
identifiers, FinCEN acknowledges that anyone who meets the statutory 
criteria could apply for a FinCEN identifier under the rule. However, 
the primary incentives for individual beneficial owners to apply for a 
FinCEN identifier are likely data security (an individual may see less 
risk in submitting personal identifiable information to FinCEN directly 
and exclusively than doing so indirectly through one or more 
individuals at one or more reporting companies) and administrative 
efficiency (when an individual is likely to be identified as a 
beneficial owner of numerous reporting companies). Company applicants 
that are responsible for many reporting companies may have similar 
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.
    Given these incentives, which FinCEN acknowledges are based on 
assumptions, FinCEN believes that the number of individuals who will 
apply for a FinCEN identifier will likely be relatively low. FinCEN is 
estimating that number to be approximately 1 percent of 32.6 million 
reporting companies in Year 1 and 1 percent of 5 million new reporting 
companies each year thereafter. This is the same assumption made by 
FinCEN in the NPRM to estimate the number of individuals applying for a 
FinCEN identifier. Given that the number of reporting companies 
estimated in the RIA has increased, this estimate will increase 
proportionally. FinCEN did receive comments discussing utility of the 
FinCEN identifier, but did not receive specific comments suggesting an 
alternative methodology or source from which to estimate the number of 
individuals that may apply for one.
    FinCEN assumes that, similar to reporting companies' initial 
filings, there will be an initial influx of applications for a FinCEN 
identifier that will then decrease to a smaller annual rate of requests 
after Year 1. Therefore, FinCEN estimates that 325,569 individuals will 
apply for a FinCEN identifier during Year 1 and 49,985 individuals will 
apply for on a FinCEN identifier annually thereafter.
    Consistent with the NPRM, FinCEN anticipates that initial FinCEN 
identifier applications for individuals will require approximately 20 
minutes (10 minutes to read the application instructions and understand 
the information required and 10 minutes to fill out and file the 
request, including attaching an image of an acceptable identification 
document), given that the information to be submitted to FinCEN will be 
readily available to the person requesting the FinCEN identifier. 
FinCEN does not account for the burden of understanding the BOI 
reporting requirements in the FinCEN identifier application process, as 
FinCEN assumes that burden will be accounted for in the broader process 
of a reporting company assessing its BOI reporting obligations, which 
will presumably involve communication with beneficial owners about 
requirements and options. FinCEN adjusted the wage rate to align with 
the wage rate of $56.76 per hour estimated in the cost analysis. This 
is an increase from the wage rate estimated in the NPRM, but reflects 
an incorporation of commenters' suggestions regarding the wage estimate 
for those with filing requirements. FinCEN assesses that the same wage 
rate will be applicable for FinCEN identifier requests for individuals 
because individuals submitting such requests are likely to be 
individuals with filing requirements.\361\ The estimated cost per 
application is therefore $18.92. The total cost of FinCEN identifier 
applications for individuals in Year 1 is estimated to be $6.2 million, 
with an annual cost of $945,667 thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \361\ FinCEN assumes that beneficial owners, some of which are 
also company applicants, will file the majority of BOI reports. 
FinCEN also assesses that employees of reporting companies may also 
be involved in the filing process, depending on the complexity of 
the company's structure. FinCEN believes that the same individuals 
are likely to request FinCEN identifiers and therefore uses the same 
reporting company hourly wage rate from earlier in the analysis. 
FinCEN acknowledges that other company applicants, such as those in 
the legal profession, are also likely to request FinCEN identifiers 
although such professions are not included in this wage estimate. 
However, given that the specifics of who will utilize FinCEN 
identifiers is unknown at this time, FinCEN uses the same hourly 
wage rate for purposes of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 based on the number of FinCEN identifier 
applications received in Year 1. However, FinCEN only applied the 
monthly probability of 0.0068 (8.16 percent, the annual likelihood of a 
change in address, divided by 12 to identify a monthly rate), as this 
was the sole probability of those previously estimated that would 
result in a change

[[Page 59578]]

to an individual's identifying information. This analysis estimated 
12,180 updates in Year 1 and 26,575 annually thereafter. As in the 
NPRM, FinCEN estimates that updates would require 10 minutes (10 
minutes to fill out and file the update). The estimated cost per 
application is therefore $9.46. The total cost of FinCEN identifier 
applications for individuals in Year 1 is estimated to be $115,219 and 
$251,386 annually thereafter.
    FinCEN did not estimate the number of reporting companies that will 
obtain a FinCEN identifier in the NPRM because FinCEN assumed this 
would be part of the process and cost already estimated for BOI 
reports. A commenter noted that FinCEN did not account for this cost. 
However, the mechanism for reporting companies to obtain a FinCEN 
identifier will be to either check a box on its initial BOI report or 
submit an updated BOI report with the box checked. Therefore, FinCEN 
again assumes that the cost of reporting companies obtaining FinCEN 
identifiers is included in the BOI report cost estimates. Additionally, 
reporting companies will update FinCEN identifier information through a 
submission of a BOI report; therefore, the burden associated with such 
updates is already estimated. The final rule does not adopt proposed 31 
CFR 1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(B) regarding use of FinCEN identifiers for 
entities. FinCEN is continuing to consider this issue and intends to 
address it before the effective date. Accordingly, FinCEN has reserved 
31 CFR 1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(B) in this final rule.
    Individuals providing FinCEN identifiers to reporting companies in 
lieu of BOI for subsequent reporting to FinCEN will reduce burdens on 
reporting companies. In such cases, reporting companies will only have 
to report a beneficial owner's FinCEN identifier, as opposed to the 
associated BOI of that beneficial owner, and the beneficial owner (not 
the reporting company) would be responsible for keeping their 
information current with FinCEN. FinCEN has not estimated a reduction 
in BOI reporting burden based on the use of FinCEN identifiers at this 
time, but expects that this could be incorporated in future burden 
estimates based on the use of FinCEN identifiers.
2. Costs to FinCEN
    Administering the regulation would entail costs to FinCEN. Such 
costs include IT development and ongoing annual maintenance to securely 
collect, process, store, and make available electronic submissions of 
BOI data. FinCEN's cost estimates for development and annual 
maintenance are $72 million and $25.6 million, respectively, to meet 
the minimum system capabilities required by the rule, which includes 
capabilities related to the collection of images. While FinCEN expects 
that it will be able to leverage some existing BSA components, the 
feedback received throughout the rulemaking process has made clear that 
the BOSS architecture will be complex to design, build, and maintain. 
For example, the system of record (or database) for the beneficial 
ownership data will need to be segregated from the existing BSA system 
of record, and there will need to be another system of record to store 
the FinCEN identifier information. There will also need to be a 
separate user application with individual authentication requirements 
to perform work necessary to administer the FinCEN identifier. System 
engineering efforts have occurred simultaneously with the rulemaking 
process, which has involved significant input from various stakeholder 
groups with various access and disclosure requirements. This input has 
made clear to FinCEN that the user access and authentication will be 
complicated to design and develop.
    For purposes of total cost analysis in this RIA, FinCEN applies 
FinCEN's development costs of $72 million in Year 1 of the rule and IT 
maintenance costs of $25.6 million annually thereafter.
    FinCEN will incur additional costs, besides those estimated, in 
order to ensure successful implementation of and compliance with the 
BOI reporting requirements. These include personnel to support CTA 
implementation, draft regulations, conduct regulatory impact analyses 
and stakeholder outreach, conduct audits and inspections, adjudicate 
requests for BOI, provide training on the requirements, publish 
documents such as guidance and FAQs, and conduct outreach to and answer 
inquiries from the public. FinCEN estimates that there will be 
personnel costs of approximately $10 million associated with the rule 
in Fiscal Year 2023, with continuing recurring costs of roughly the 
same magnitude for ongoing implementation, outreach and enforcement 
each year thereafter.
    Therefore, for purposes of total cost analysis in this RIA, total 
costs to FinCEN are $82 million in Year 1 and $35.6 million annually 
thereafter.
3. Costs to Other Government Agencies
    As stated in the NPRM, the rule does not impose direct costs on 
state, local, and Tribal governments. However, based on comments 
received to both the ANPRM and NPRM,\362\ such authorities anticipate 
incurring indirect costs in connection with the implementation of the 
rule. Comments to the NPRM included possible indirect costs to such 
authorities, including costs associated with providing information to 
the public and responding to questions regarding compliance. 
Specifically, commenters proposed that such authorities would be 
responsible for mailing a notice of the reporting requirement to 
companies, identifying reporting companies that should receive such 
notice, or changing existing forms to include notification of the 
requirement. Both the NPRM and its comments noted that state 
authorities may also incur indirect costs associated with fielding of 
calls or questions from the public regarding the reporting 
requirements. One cost estimate provided by comments was $1.34 million 
to a state authority for notifying and responding to inquiries from 
entities related to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \362\ ANPRM comments were summarized in the NPRM. See 86 FR 
69954-69955 (Dec. 8, 2021). NPRM comments are summarized in this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN anticipates incurring its own costs directly to mitigate 
such expenditures by states and other authorities. The NPRM stated that 
FinCEN will work closely with state, local, and Tribal governments to 
ensure effective outreach strategies for implementation of the final 
rule. Additionally, FinCEN has a call center (the Regulatory Support 
Section) which will receive incoming inquiries relating to the CTA and 
its implementation. FinCEN will also provide guidance materials to 
state, local, and Tribal governments for their use and distribution in 
response to questions, which will minimize those governments' need to 
develop their own guidance materials at their own cost. FinCEN will 
also work closely with state, local, and Tribal authorities to identify 
cost-effective ways to notify affected parties of potentially 
applicable requirements. FinCEN appreciates the suggestions in comments 
on how to minimize burden to state, local, and Tribal authorities, and 
intends to do so in implementing the rule; therefore, the RIA does not 
include a separate cost estimate for indirect costs to state, local, or 
Tribal authorities related to the reporting requirement.
    In addition, there may be costs to other federal agencies that will 
enforce compliance with the regulation. For example, FinCEN may expend 
resources identifying noncompliant persons and, after identifying 
noncompliance, FinCEN may investigate, initiate

[[Page 59579]]

outreach to the entity, work with law enforcement in related 
investigations, or initiate a compliance or enforcement action. 
FinCEN's enforcement of the BOI reporting requirements will also 
involve coordination with law enforcement agencies. These law 
enforcement agencies may also incur costs (time and resources) while 
conducting investigations into noncompliance. FinCEN anticipates that 
costs to law enforcement agencies that have access to the BOI data will 
be assessed in the BOI access regulations, and therefore is not 
estimating them here.
4. Other Cost Considerations
    FinCEN is not aware of disproportionate budgetary effects of this 
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. As stated in 
the NPRM, the wide-reaching scope of the reporting company definition 
means that the rule will 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 exemptions to the 
reporting company definition may in practice result in segments of the 
private sector not being affected by the rule; thereby causing those 
that are affected to be disproportionately so compared to exempt 
entities.
    A commenter stated that the reporting requirements will have a 
disproportionate adverse effect on underserved communities that do not 
have access to professional expertise to understand the requirements. 
FinCEN notes that efforts have been made to minimize burdens on these 
and other segments of the regulated community. FinCEN will evaluate 
this issue further as it receives feedback from stakeholders after 
reporting requirements take effect.
    FinCEN does not have accurate estimates that are reasonably 
feasible regarding the effect of the rule on productivity, economic 
growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international 
competitiveness of U.S. goods and services.
f. Qualitative Discussion of Benefits
    As previously noted, there are several potential, interrelated 
benefits associated with this rule, including improved and more 
efficient investigations by law enforcement, and assistance to other 
authorized users in a variety of activities. This, in turn, may 
strengthen national security, enhance financial system transparency and 
integrity, and align U.S. corporate transparency requirements with 
international financial standards.
    As noted in the NPRM, the U.S. 2018 National Money Laundering Risk 
Assessment (2018 NMLRA) estimated that domestic financial crime, 
excluding tax evasion, generates approximately $300 billion of proceeds 
for potential laundering annually, which is consistent with the United 
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) range that places criminal 
activity between 2 and 5 percent of global GDP.\363\ 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 some legitimate business 
proceeds to commingle with illicit earnings. The 2022 NMLRA notes that 
professional money laundering organizations and corruption networks, 
for example, leverage such front companies.\364\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \363\ 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. The U.S. 2022 National Money Laundering 
Risk Assessment (2022 NMLRA) did not include an estimate of the 
annual domestic financial crime proceeds generated for potential 
money laundering. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, National 
Money Laundering Risk Assessment (2022), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2022-National-Money-Laundering-Risk-Assessment.pdf.
    \364\ 2022 NMLRA, pp. 21, 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\365\ but entities are frequently used in money laundering 
schemes and provide a layer of anonymity to the natural persons 
involved in such transactions.\366\ The deliberate misuse of legal 
entities, including limited liability companies and other corporate 
vehicles, trusts, partnerships, and the use of nominees continue to be 
significant tools for facilitating money laundering and other illicit 
financial activity in the U.S. financial system.\367\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \365\ The NPRM noted that trade-based money laundering is one 
example of a scheme that uses legal entities, and noted that the 
Government Accountability Office's 2020 report on trade-based money 
laundering stated 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.
    \366\ Please see the discussion of this topic in the Background 
section of the preamble and the NPRM, which describe 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.
    \367\ 2022 NMLRA, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Identifying the owners of these entities is a crucial step to all 
parties that investigate money laundering. The 2022 NMLRA notes that 
determining the true ownership of these structures requires time-
consuming and resource-intensive processes by law enforcement when 
conducting financial investigations.\368\ However, there is currently 
no systematic way to obtain information on the beneficial owners of 
entities in the United States. The misuse of legal entities, both 
within the United States and abroad, remains a major money laundering 
vulnerability in the U.S. financial system.\369\ Within the United 
States, criminals have historically been able to take advantage of the 
lack of uniform laws and regulations pertaining to the disclosure of 
information detailing an entity's beneficial ownership. This has 
stemmed mainly from the different levels of information and 
transparency required by states at the time of a legal entity's 
registration.\370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \368\ Id., p. 35.
    \369\ Id., pp. 35-36.
    \370\ Id., p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits outlined in the NPRM's RIA continue to apply to the 
final rule. The rule will help address the lack of BOI critical for 
money laundering investigations. Improved visibility into the 
identities of the individuals who own or control entities will 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 will likewise 
benefit from the use of these data. The BOI database will 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

[[Page 59580]]

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 become more effective, money laundering in 
the United States will become more difficult. Making any method of 
money laundering more difficult in the U.S. will 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.\371\ This 
may serve to deter the use of U.S. entities for money laundering 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \371\ 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 rule will promote a more transparent, 
and consequently more secure, economy. Some comments to the NPRM 
generally supported the goal of increased corporate transparency. The 
NPRM's RIA noted that financial institutions with authorized access to 
such data would have key data points available for their customer due 
diligence processes, which may decrease customer due diligence and 
other compliance burdens. The 2016 CDD Rule also promotes transparency 
in ownership structures of legal entities, and thereby strengthens the 
U.S. economy and national security. However, the rule will build upon 
and improve the 2016 CDD Rule's 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. 
Moreover, the rule will require reporting of the BOI to a centralized 
database and such BOI will be made available to authorized users. The 
rule will also apply to a broader range of entities, since the 2016 CDD 
Rule covers only those institutions subject to financial institution 
customer due diligence requirements (e.g., those with accounts at such 
institutions). Further, unlike the 2016 CDD Rule, this rule does not 
limit the number reported of individuals in substantial control to one 
person, which provides law enforcement and other authorized users a 
much more complete picture of who makes important decisions at a 
reporting company. Comments to the NPRM emphasized that a decrease in 
customer due diligence burden would depend on the similarities between 
the BOI reporting requirements and the revised CDD rule; therefore, 
FinCEN expects that such an estimate will be addressed in the revised 
CDD rule.
    FinCEN also expects increased transparency in ownership structures 
of entities to enhance 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 capitalize 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. The increased 
transparency in ownership structure of entities could also bolster the 
confidence and trust of reporting companies in other companies they do 
business with, and potentially encourage new business growth and 
economic development, as reporting companies could be fairly confident 
of the legitimacy of their new business relationships since their 
businesses partners will also likely be subject to this rule's 
reporting requirements.
    Third, the BOI reporting requirements will have the benefit of 
aligning the United States with international AML/CFT standards, 
bolstering support for such standards and strengthening cooperation 
with international partners. The United States will also share BOI, 
subject to appropriate protocols consistent with the CTA, in 
transnational investigations, tax enforcement, and the identification 
of national and international security threats. Aligning with 
international AML/CFT standards will also strengthen the reputation of 
the United States as a global leader in combating money laundering and 
terrorist financing.
g. Present Value and Conclusions
    The following table totals the burden and costs estimated in the 
prior sections. The totals for initial and updated BOI reports 
incorporate the distribution of reporting companies' beneficial 
ownership structures discussed in connection with Table 1 above. In 
addition, FinCEN calculated the average over the first five years of 
burden and costs associated with the rule (which only includes costs to 
the public, not costs to FinCEN). This five-year average is 53,309,290 
burden hours and $9,032,327,614.77 in cost. As previously described, 
the rule also has significant benefits that currently are not 
quantifiable. The total estimated burden and costs associated with this 
rule is summarized in Table 5.

[[Page 59581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE22.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE22.007

    In addition, FinCEN calculated the present value of cost for a 10-
year horizon at discount rates of seven and three percent,\376\ 
totaling approximately $55.7 billion and $64.8 billion, respectively. 
FinCEN is selecting the time period of 10 years, a relatively short 
time period given that the requirement is permanent. This is because 
FinCEN cannot predict how the burden and costs of compliance may change 
after the requirement is widely adopted by reporting companies. For 
example, in the cost analysis it states that FinCEN anticipates the 
upper bound estimate of the cost of

[[Page 59582]]

professional expertise will decrease over time as professionals become 
familiarized with the rule and thus more efficient and effective in 
helping clients comply with the rule. However, FinCEN is not able to 
predict such efficiencies at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \372\ Regarding burden hours for BOI reports, companies with 
simple beneficial ownership structures account for an estimated 
31,400,517 burden hours in Year 1 (((0.59 x 32,556,929) x (90 
minutes/60 minutes)) + ((0.59 x 6,578,732 x (40 minutes/60 
minutes))) = 31,400,517. Companies with intermediate beneficial 
ownership structures account for an estimated 76,633,264 burden 
hours in Year 1 (((0.361 x 32,556,929) x (370 minutes/60 minutes)) + 
((0.361 x 6,578,732) x (105 minutes/60 minutes))) = 76,633,264. 
Companies with complex beneficial ownership structures account for 
an estimated 18,195,650 burden hours in Year 1 (((0.049 x 
32,556,929) x (650/60)) + ((0.049 x 6,578,732 x (170 minutes/60 
minutes))) = 18,195,650. 31,400,517 + 76,633,264 + 18,195,650 + 
108,523 + 2,030 = 126,339,984.
    \373\ Regarding costs for BOI reports, companies with simple 
beneficial ownership structures account for an estimated 
$1,782,211,687.09 in Year 1 ((0.59 x 32,556,929) x 85.14)) + ((0.59 
x 6,578,732) x 37.84) = $1,782,211,687.09. Companies with 
intermediate beneficial ownership structures account for an 
estimated $16,577,540,630.34 in Year 1 ((0.361 x 32,556,929) x 
85.14)) + ((0.361 x 6,578,732) x 37.84) = $16,577,540,630.34. 
Companies with complex beneficial ownership structures account for 
an estimated $4,352,259,996.78 in Year 1 ((0.049 x 32,556,929) x 
85.14)) + ((0.049 x 6,578,732) x 37.84) = $4,352,259,996.78. 
($1,782,211,687.09 + $16,577,540,630.34 + $4,352,259,996.78 + 
$6,159,488.81 + $115,218.68 + $82,000,000= $22,800,287,021.69)
    \374\ Regarding burden hours for BOI reports, companies with 
simple beneficial ownership structures account for an estimated 
10,109,849 burden hours in Years 2+ (((0.59 x 4,998,468) x (90 
minutes/60 minutes)) + ((0.59 x 14,456,452) x (40 minutes/60 
minutes))) = 10,109,849. Companies with intermediate beneficial 
ownership structures account for an estimated 20,260,286 burden 
hours in Years 2+ (((0.361 x 4,998,468) x (370 minutes/60 minutes)) 
+ ((0.361 x 14,456,452 x (105/60))) = 20,260,286. Companies with 
complex beneficial ownership structures account for an estimated 
4,660,391 burden hours in Years 2+ (((0.049 x 4,998,468) x (650 
minutes/60 minutes)) + ((0.049 x 14,456,452) x (170/60))) = 
4,660,391. 10,109,948 + 20,260,286 + 4,660,391 + 16,662 + 4,429 = 
35,051,617.
    \375\ Regarding costs for BOI reports, companies with simple 
beneficial ownership structures account for $573,808,725.53 in 
estimated costs in Years 2+ ((0.59 x 4,998,468 x $85.14) + (0.59 x 
14,456,452 x $37.84) = $573,808,725.53. Companies with intermediate 
beneficial ownership structures account for $3,998,123,986.98 in 
estimated costs in Years 2+ ((0.361 x 4,998,468 x $1,350) + (0.361 x 
14,456,452 x $299.33) = $3,998,123,986.98. Companies with complex 
beneficial ownership structures account for $1,037,707,997.47 in 
estimated costs in Years 2+ ((0.049 x 4,998,468 x $2614.87 + (0.049 
x 14,456,452 x $560.81)) = $1,037,707,997.47. ($574,808,725.53 + 
$3,998,123,986.98 + $1,037,707,997.47 + $945,666.84 + $251,386.22 + 
$35,600,000) = $5,646,437,763.04.
    \376\ These discount rates were applied based on OMB guidance in 
Circular A-4. See Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 
(Sept. 17, 2003), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN calculated the cost over a 10-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 because the 
number of new entities each year are assumed to be the same for Years 
2-10. However, FinCEN includes an alternative cost estimate in which 
FinCEN assumes that the rate of new entities created will grow at a 
rate of approximately 13.1 percent per year from 2020 through 
2033.\377\ This 13.1 percent growth is based on the calculated 
annualized growth factor in new entity creations in IACA's data from 
2018 to 2020, and was incorporated to address NPRM comments that the 
assumption that growth and dissolution is likely to be equivalent 
throughout this time horizon may not be accurate. This results in a 
present value of cost for a 10-year horizon at discount rates of seven 
and three percent totaling approximately $84.1 billion and $102.6 
billion, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \377\ This is in contrast to the main analysis that assumes 13.1 
percent growth in new entities from 2020 through 2024, and then a 
stable same number of 5 million new entities each year thereafter 
through 2033. Modifying this growth assumption to equal 13.1 percent 
growth in new formations in years 2024 through 2033 results in a new 
entity annual formation estimate of 5 million in the year of 
implementation of the reporting rule (2024), increasing to 
approximately 5.6 million by 2033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits of the rule are difficult to quantify, but the prior 
description of these benefits point to their significance. FinCEN's 
2016 CDD Rule also did not quantify the benefits of collecting BOI, but 
rather included a breakeven analysis.\378\ While the 2016 CDD Rule and 
this rule require submission of BOI under different circumstances and 
to different parties, the breakeven analysis of the 2016 CDD Rule 
suggests that even a small percentage reduction in money laundering 
activities as a result of this rule could result in economically 
significant net benefits. The U.S. 2018 NMLRA estimates that domestic 
financial crime, excluding tax evasion, generates approximately $300 
billion of proceeds for potential laundering annually.\379\ In that 
light, a rule that imposes undoubtedly significant costs of 
approximately $22.8 billion in the first year and $5.6 billion each 
year thereafter, is still, relatively modest in comparison to the 
magnitude of money laundering as a factor affecting the U.S. economy. 
While many of the rule's benefits are not currently quantifiable, 
FinCEN assesses that the rule will have a significant positive impact 
and that the benefits justify the costs. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \378\ 81 FR 29444-29446 (May 11, 2016).
    \379\ 2018 NMLRA, p. 2. The U.S. 2022 NMLRA did not include an 
estimate of the annual domestic financial crime proceeds generated 
for potential money laundering. See 2022 NMLRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    When an agency issues a rule proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA) requires the agency to either provide an IRFA or, in lieu of 
preparing an analysis, to certify that the proposed rule is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.\380\ When FinCEN issued its NPRM, FinCEN believed 
that the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and provided an IRFA.\381\ FinCEN 
received numerous comments related to the RIA, although only a couple 
specifically referenced the IRFA. Some of the comments related to the 
RIA were from small entities and associations representing small 
entities. FinCEN has discussed those comments relating to specific 
provisions in the proposed rule in Section III above, and those 
relating to the RIA in Section V.A. above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \380\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \381\ 86 FR 69951-69954 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFA requires each Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to 
contain:
     A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, 
the rule;
     A summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the IRFA, a summary of the assessment of the 
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the 
proposed rule as a result of such comments;
     A description of and an estimate of the number of small 
entities to which the proposed rule would apply;
     A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for the 
preparation of the report or record; and
     A description of the steps the agency has taken to 
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent 
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a 
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \382\ 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Statement of the Reasons For, and Objectives of, the 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.\383\ 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 and 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 
rule will 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 
applicants of the reporting company, as required by the CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \383\ CTA, Section 6402(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments 
in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of 
Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Proposed Rule 
as a Result of Such Comments
    FinCEN has carefully considered the comment letters received in 
response to the NPRM. Section III provides a general overview of the 
comments and discusses the significant issues raised by

[[Page 59583]]

comments. In addition, Section V.A. includes a discussion of the 
comments received with respect to the preliminary RIA and IRFA, 
including those with respect to the estimated cost imposed on small 
businesses from the rule. FinCEN has considered the comments received 
from small entities and from associations representing them, regardless 
of whether or not the comments referred to the IRFA. Commenters 
expressed concern about the cost of the requirement on small 
businesses. FinCEN considered the burden and costs of the specific 
requirements throughout the final rule, and has adjusted the analysis 
appropriately.
    Numerous commenters discussed whether or how FinCEN should use its 
statutory authority to add more exemptions to the definition of 
``reporting company.'' FinCEN discusses in detail in the preamble the 
exemptions to the rule, which are statutorily mandated, and FinCEN's 
decision to not propose additional exemptions of entities at this time. 
Some commenters suggested that small businesses should be exempt from 
the reporting requirements. As noted in the NPRM, FinCEN believes that 
the definition of reporting company requires small businesses to report 
beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Given FinCEN's assessment 
that all reporting companies are likely to be small entities, such an 
exemption could result in no entities being subject to the rule. FinCEN 
will continue to consider suggestions for additional exemptions, 
subject to the process required by the CTA, and consider regulatory and 
other implications associated with a given discretionary exemption.
    A couple comments to the NPRM specifically referenced the IRFA. One 
commenter stated that the proposed rule is silent on FinCEN's efforts 
to minimize burden on small businesses, explaining that the IRFA 
completely ignores entire issues that are required under the 5 U.S.C. 
603, and opining that the IRFA is materially defective.\384\ Another 
commenter stated that FinCEN must complete an IRFA, although the 
commenter cited to the IRFA in the NPRM. In response to these comments, 
FinCEN notes that an IRFA was included in the NPRM.\385\ An IRFA is 
required to include the following points, each of which is discussed in 
the NPRM's IRFA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \384\ The comment referred to the ``IFRA'', but FinCEN assumes 
that the commenter is discussing the IRFA.
    \385\ 86 FR 69951-69954 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A description of the reasons why action by the agency is 
being considered; \386\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \386\ See ``Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the 
Proposed Rule'' 86 FR 69951 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis 
for, the proposed rule; \387\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \387\ See ``Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the 
Proposed Rule'' 86 FR 69951 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; \388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \388\ See ``Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule'' 86 FR 
69951-69952 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping 
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record; \389\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \389\ See ``Compliance Requirements'' 86 FR 69952-69953 (Dec. 8, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An identification, to the extent practicable, of all 
relevant federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with 
the proposed rule; \390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \390\ See ``Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal 
Rules'' 86 FR 69953 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A description of any significant alternatives to the 
proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities. \391\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \391\ See ``Significant Alternatives that Reduce Burden on Small 
Entities'' 86 FR 69953-69954 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other sections in this FRFA reference details from the IRFA 
when appropriate. In addition, more specific information regarding the 
estimated costs for small entities resulting from the final rule is set 
forth in Section V.B.v below, and other steps FinCEN has taken to 
minimize the economic impact of the rule on small entities are set 
forth in Section V.B.vi below.
iii. The Response of the Agency to a Comment Filed by the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response to the 
Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to the 
Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comment
    The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(``Advocacy'') filed a comment to the NPRM on February 4, 2022, that 
stated that Advocacy is concerned about the economic impact of the NPRM 
on small entities, and encourages FinCEN to implement less costly 
alternatives. Advocacy noted that FinCEN prepared an IRFA for the NPRM.
    Specifically, Advocacy stated that FinCEN should allow for maximum 
flexibility in reporting timelines to mitigate the costs of the rule. 
Advocacy noted that the CTA permits for two years for existing entities 
to file initial reports and one year to file updated reports, while the 
proposed rule requires one year and 30 days, respectively. 
Additionally, Advocacy notes that the CTA permits a 90 day safe harbor 
for inaccurate reports, while the proposed rule requires corrected 
reports to be filed within 14 days of the date the person knew, or 
should have known, that the information was inaccurate, thus adding an 
additional deadline requirement. Advocacy encourages FinCEN to allow 
for the maximum flexibility allowed in the statute and extend the 
compliance requirements accordingly. Other commenters reiterated the 
points raised by Advocacy and requested that these timelines be 
extended to the statutory maximum.
    FinCEN has retained the proposed rule's reporting timeline of one 
year, rather than two years, for existing entities' initial reports. 
FinCEN assesses, in an alternative scenario analysis included herein, 
that small businesses that are reporting companies would incur the same 
cost one year from the rule's effective date as they would two years 
from its effective date. Therefore, FinCEN assesses that the alternate 
timeline will have little impact on most existing reporting companies, 
with regard to the cost of filing the report. Additionally, FinCEN's 
effective date of January 1, 2024, will allow for a substantial 
outreach effort to notify small businesses about the requirement, and 
will give existing reporting companies time to understand the 
requirement prior to the one-year timeline. Importantly, as discussed 
in the alternative scenario, FinCEN believes that the one year 
reporting timeline is valuable to law enforcement and to other 
authorized users that require access to accurate and timely BOI, given 
the time-sensitive nature of investigations. As such, FinCEN has 
retained the timeline in the proposed rule.
    FinCEN has also retained the proposed rule's reporting timeline for 
updated reports as 30 days, rather than one year. FinCEN includes an 
alternative scenario analysis that assumes a one year timeline. While 
FinCEN acknowledges a potential aggregate cost savings to the public, 
the bureau does not view the savings as offsetting the corresponding 
degradation to BOI database quality that would come with allowing 
reporting companies to wait a full year to update BOI with

[[Page 59584]]

FinCEN. As noted in both the preamble to this rule and the NPRM, FinCEN 
considers keeping the database current and accurate as essential to 
keeping it highly useful, and that allowing reporting companies to wait 
to update beneficial ownership information for more than 30 days--or 
allowing them to report updates on only an annual basis--could cause a 
significant degradation in accuracy and usefulness of the database. 
While these risks are more difficult to quantify than cost estimates to 
reporting companies, these concerns justify the increased cost.
    With respect to corrected reports, the final rule extends the 
filing deadline from 14 to 30 days in order to provide reporting 
companies with adequate time to obtain and report the correct 
information. The final rule reflects the concerns raised by commenters 
that the 14-day timeframe may not provide sufficient time for reporting 
companies to conduct adequate due diligence, consult with advisors, or 
conduct appropriate outreach, while at the same time providing a 
sufficiently short timeframe to ensure that errors are corrected 
quickly so that the database will remain accurate, complete, and highly 
useful.
    Advocacy also encourages FinCEN to provide a clear and concise 
compliance guide that provides information about the requirements of 
the rule. Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires agencies to provide a compliance guide 
for each rule (or related series of rules) that requires a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis.\392\ Agencies are required to publish 
the guides with publication of the final rule, post them to websites, 
distribute them to industry contacts, and report annually to 
Congress.\393\ Advocacy notes that the rule could cause confusion and 
anxiety as small businesses try to determine whether they need to 
comply and, if so, what they need to do to comply. Small businesses 
could expend time and other resources that they may not have while 
attempting to comply with the requirements of the rulemaking. Advocacy 
also points out that FinCEN acknowledges in its IRFA that small 
businesses may not have the funds to obtain an attorney or other type 
of professional to assist them in understanding the requirements of the 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \392\ Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-121, 212, 110 Stat. 857, 858 (1996).
    \393\ The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 
added these additional requirements for agency compliance to SBREFA. 
See Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007, Public Law 
110-28, 121 Stat. 190 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN anticipates issuing a Small Entity Compliance Guide, 
pursuant to section 212 of SBREFA, in order to assist small entities in 
complying with these reporting requirements. In addition, FinCEN has 
also adjusted its regulatory impact analysis herein to account for the 
cost of small businesses hiring an attorney or other type of 
professional to assist in the reporting requirements; however, FinCEN 
maintains that not all reporting companies will incur this expense. 
FinCEN concurs with Advocacy that guidance about the reporting 
requirement will be critical in assisting small businesses in complying 
with the rule.
iv. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Rule Will Apply
    To assess the number of small entities affected by the rule, FinCEN 
separately considered whether any small businesses, small 
organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions, as defined by the 
RFA, will be impacted. FinCEN concludes that a substantial number of 
small businesses will be significantly impacted by the rule, which is 
consistent with the IRFA.
    In defining ``small business'', the RFA points to the definition of 
``small business concern'' from the Small Business Act.\394\ This small 
business definition is based on size standards (either average annual 
receipts or number of employees) matched to industries.\395\ The rule 
will apply to ``reporting companies'' required to submit BOI reports to 
FinCEN. There are 23 types of entities that are exempt from submitting 
BOI reports to FinCEN, 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, apply to larger businesses. For example, the large 
operating company 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. Using the 
SBA's July 2022 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 $5 million 
in gross receipts/sales threshold in the rule's large operating company 
exemption (without considering whether entities in such industries 
would also meet the 20 employees portion of the exemption). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \394\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \395\ See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System Codes (July 14, 2022), available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20July%2014%202022_Final-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN estimates that there will be approximately 32.6 million 
existing reporting companies and 5 million new reporting companies 
formed each year.\396\ FinCEN assumes that for purposes of estimating 
costs to small businesses, all reporting companies are small 
businesses. Such a general descriptive statement on the number of small 
businesses to which the rule will apply is specifically permitted under 
the RFA, when, as here, greater quantification is not practicable or 
reliable.\397\ FinCEN has made this assumption in part to ensure that 
its FRFA does not underestimate the economic impact on small 
businesses.

[[Page 59585]]

FinCEN requested comment in the NPRM on more precise ways to estimate 
the number of small businesses, and has discussed comments related to 
its entity estimates in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \396\ FinCEN estimated these numbers by relying upon the most 
recent available data, 2020, of the international business registers 
report survey administered by the International Association of 
Commercial Administrators in which multiple states 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, 2021 
International Business Registers Report, (2021), available at 
https://www.iaca.org/ibrs-survey/. 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 an average of the per capita ratio of the 
states to estimate a per capita average for the entire United 
States. FinCEN then multiplied this estimated 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 32.6 million reporting companies currently 
in existence and 5 million new reporting companies per year. To 
review this analysis, including all sources and numbers, please see 
the RIA.
    \397\ 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.\398\ FinCEN assesses that the rule 
will not affect ``small organizations,'' as defined by the RFA because 
it 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. Therefore, any small organization, as defined by the RFA, will 
not be a reporting company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \398\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\399\ FinCEN assesses that the 
rule will not directly affect any ``small governmental jurisdictions,'' 
as defined by the RFA. The rule 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. Therefore, small governmental jurisdictions will be 
uniformly exempt from reporting pursuant to the rule. Certain small 
governmental jurisdictions may be among the state and local authorities 
that incur indirect costs as they address questions on the BOI 
reporting rule. However, FinCEN does not have adequate information to 
estimate these possible burdens on small governmental jurisdictions in 
particular, and did not receive comments regarding these burdens. 
FinCEN will take all possible measures to minimize the costs associated 
with questions from the public directed at state and local government 
agencies and offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \399\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the 
Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and 
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for the Preparation of the 
Report or Record
    The rule imposes a new reporting requirement on certain entities, 
including small entities, to file with FinCEN reports that identify the 
entities' beneficial owners, and in certain cases their company 
applicants. The report must contain information about the entity 
itself. The reporting company must also certify that the report is 
true, correct, and complete. The rule also requires that reporting 
companies update the information in these reports as needed, and that 
incorrectly reported information be corrected, within specific 
timeframes.
    Many comments received in response to the NRPM stated that FinCEN 
had underestimated or failed to estimate the burden to reporting 
companies resulting from the proposal in the following areas: (1) 
gathering relevant information for both initial and updated reports; 
and (2) hiring or utilizing compliance, legal, or other resources for 
expert advice on filing requirements. Additional comments were received 
in the ANPRM process that discussed potential costs related to these 
reporting requirements, and were summarized in the IRFA in the 
NPRM.\400\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \400\ See 86 FR 69952 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN reviewed and incorporated commenter suggestions into the 
analysis. FinCEN has also incorporated changes into the final rule to 
lessen the burden of such compliance activities. For example, as 
explained in the preamble, the final rule harmonizes the reporting 
timeframes at 30 days for initial reports by newly created or 
registered entities, updated reports, and corrected reports. A number 
of commenters advocated for these harmonized timeframes to ease 
administration for reporting companies and service providers that may 
support reporting companies, which FinCEN has adopted. Additionally, 
the final rule removes the requirement that entities created before the 
effective date of the regulations report company applicant information. 
Newly created entities will still be required to report company 
applicant information, but they will not be required to update it. 
FinCEN believes that these changes will relieve unique and potentially 
substantial burdens on reporting companies associated with company 
applicant information. The final rule also clarifies the certification 
language to be consistent with other FinCEN certifications, which 
require a certification that the reported information is ``true, 
correct, and complete.'' FinCEN anticipates issuing a Small Entity 
Compliance Guide, pursuant to section 212 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, in order to assist small 
entities in complying with these reporting requirements.
    FinCEN estimates that small businesses across multiple industries 
will be subject to these requirements. Therefore, FinCEN does not 
estimate what classes of small businesses would particularly be 
affected. FinCEN estimates 32.6 million domestic and foreign reporting 
companies will exist in 2024, and 5 million new reporting companies 
will be created each year thereafter. As discussed in connection with 
Table 1 above, for purposes of estimating costs, FinCEN applied a 
distribution of likely beneficial ownership structure of reporting 
companies: 59 percent will have a ``simple structure'', 36.1 percent 
will have an ``intermediate structure, and 4.9 percent will have a 
``complex structure''. The data supporting this distribution is related 
to the number of owners reported in U.S. Census Bureau's 2020 Annual 
Business Survey. FinCEN assumed for purposes of this analysis that 
simple structures will report one person on BOI reports; intermediate 
structures will report five people on BOI reports; and complex 
structures will report ten people on BOI reports.\401\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \401\ See Table 1 in the RIA and preceding text for discussion 
regarding the distribution of reporting companies, including how 
this distribution was identified. Though additional data was 
available related to the revenue and gross receipts of certain types 
and sizes of entities, such as Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. 
Businesses and Nonemployer Statistics, FinCEN chose to rely upon the 
indicator most relevant to the compliance cost of reporting 
beneficial owners (i.e., the number of owners). This approach 
allowed FinCEN to provide a lower bound and upper bound estimate and 
a likely cost based on the number of beneficial owners without 
having to make further assumptions about how compliance costs might 
vary across entities based on number and expertise of employees or 
the industry, geographical location, profitability, or age of the 
entity. FinCEN believes it is appropriate to focus on number of 
beneficial owners because this is likely to directly affect how 
burdensome the requirement is for reporting companies. The RIA 
includes a discussion of the other Census Bureau sources and their 
applicability to FinCEN's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming that all reporting companies are small businesses, the 
burden hours for filing BOI reports would be 126.3 million \402\ in the 
first year of the reporting requirement (as existing small businesses 
come into compliance with the rule) and 35 million \403\ in the years 
after. FinCEN estimates that the total cost of filing BOI reports is 
approximately $22.7

[[Page 59586]]

billion \404\ in the first year and $5.6 billion \405\ in the years 
after. FinCEN estimates it would cost the 32.6 million domestic and 
foreign reporting companies that are estimated to exist in 2024 
approximately $85.14-2,614.87 \406\ each to prepare and submit an 
initial report for the first year that the BOI reporting requirements 
are in effect. These costs are summarized in Table 5--Total Burden and 
Cost. FinCEN estimates it would cost approximately $37.84-560.81 for 
entities to file updated BOI reports.\407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \402\ 118.6 million hours to file initial BOI reports + 7.7 
million hours to file updated BOI reports. Please see the RIA cost 
analysis section for the underlying analysis related to these burden 
hour estimates.
    \403\ 18.2 million hours to file initial BOI reports + 16.8 
million hours to file updated BOI reports. Please see the RIA cost 
analysis section for the underlying analysis related to these burden 
hour estimates.
    \404\ $21.7 billion to file initial BOI reports + $1 billion to 
file updated BOI reports. FinCEN estimated cost using a loaded wage 
rate of $56.76 per hour. Please see RIA cost analysis section for 
the underlying analysis related to these cost estimates.
    \405\ $3.3 billion to file initial BOI reports + $2.3 billion to 
file updated BOI reports. FinCEN estimated cost using a loaded wage 
rate of $56.76 per hour. Please see the RIA cost analysis section 
for the underlying analysis related to these cost estimates.
    \406\ See Table 2 in the RIA for details on this range and how 
the estimated time burden and cost of professional expertise is 
estimated to vary among reporting companies with simple, 
intermediate, and complex beneficial ownership structures.
    \407\ See Table 4 in the RIA for details on this range and how 
the estimated time burden and cost of professional expertise is 
estimated to vary among reporting companies with simple, 
intermediate, and complex beneficial ownership structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule provides an estimated range of the cost of 
professional expertise to the cost of both initial and updated BOI 
reports.\408\ In the NPRM, FinCEN sought comment on whether small 
businesses anticipate requiring professional expertise to comply with 
the BOI requirements and what FinCEN could do to minimize the need for 
such expertise. The NPRM did not include the cost of hiring 
professionals in its cost estimate, but noted that FinCEN is aware that 
some reporting companies may seek legal or other professional advice in 
complying with the BOI requirements. Based on comments, professional 
expertise that will be sought out to comply with the reporting 
requirements are primarily lawyers and accountants. FinCEN has 
incorporated costs related to this expertise in its cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \408\ As stated in the NPRM, FinCEN intends that the reporting 
requirement will be accessible to the personnel of reporting 
companies who will need to comply with these regulations and will 
not require specific professional skills or expertise to prepare the 
report. Therefore, the lower bound estimate for reporting companies 
with simple structures to complete initial and updated reports will 
be zero. In concurrence with comments that it is likely that some 
reporting companies will hire or consult professional experts, the 
upper bound estimate for reporting companies to engage professional 
expertise is $2,000 for initial BOI reports and $400 for updated BOI 
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on the Small Entities Was Rejected
    The steps FinCEN has taken to minimize the significant economic 
impact on small entities and the factual, policy, and legal reasons for 
selecting the final rule are described throughout the preamble. This 
section of the FRFA includes the alternative scenarios considered in 
the RIA, one of which would have increased the significant economic 
impact on small entities, and was thus rejected. FinCEN also explains 
in this section why other significant alternatives were not selected in 
the final rule.
    The rule is statutorily mandated, and therefore FinCEN has limited 
ability to implement alternatives. However, FinCEN considered the 
following significant alternatives which affected the impact on small 
entities. The sources and analysis underlying the burden and cost 
estimates cited in these alternatives are explained in the RIA.
a. Reporting Timeline for Existing Entities
    The CTA requires reporting companies already in existence when the 
final rule comes into effect to submit initial BOI reports to FinCEN 
``in a timely manner, and not later than 2 years after'' that effective 
date.\409\ In the NPRM, FinCEN proposed requiring existing reporting 
companies to submit initial reports within one year of the effective 
date, which is permissible given the CTA's two-year maximum timeframe. 
As noted in the NPRM, however, FinCEN considered giving existing 
reporting companies the entire two years to submit initial BOI reports 
as authorized by the statute, and compared the cost to the public under 
the one-year and two-year scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \409\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both scenarios, the estimated cost per initial BOI report ranges 
from $85.14 to $2,614.87, depending on the complexity of a reporting 
company's beneficial ownership structure. That cost does not change 
depending on whether reporting companies have to incur it within one 
year or two years of the rule's effective date. If all 32,556,929 
existing reporting companies have to incur it in the same single year, 
the aggregate cost to all existing reporting companies is approximately 
$21.7 billion for Year 1, after applying the beneficial ownership 
distribution assumption. FinCEN assumed that if the reporting deadline 
for existing reporting companies was two years from the final rule's 
effective date, then half of those entities would file their initial 
BOI report in the first year and the other half would file in the 
second, dividing that initial aggregate cost in half to produce average 
aggregate costs of approximately $10.8 billion in each year.\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \410\ Changing the estimated number of initial reports in Year 1 
and Year 2 has downstream effects on other estimates in the 
analysis. FinCEN assumes that the estimated number of FinCEN 
identifier applications tied to initial report filings (the number 
is estimated to be 1 percent of reporting companies) would similarly 
extend from a one-year to two-year period. Half of the initial 
FinCEN identifier applications, which FinCEN assumes are linked to 
persons with ties to existing reporting companies, would be filed in 
Year 1, and the other half in Year 2. FinCEN also assumed that 
updated reports and FinCEN identifier information would increase at 
an incremental rate throughout the two-year period (rather than one-
year), and therefore calculated the number of updated reports by 
extending its methodology to a 24-month timeframe (rather than a 12-
month timeframe). From Year 3 onward, estimates related to initial 
BOI reports would be based on the number newly created reporting 
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to FinCEN's analysis, requiring existing reporting 
companies to file initial BOI reports within two years of the rule's 
effective date instead of one results in a 10-year horizon present 
value at a three percent discount rate of approximately $60.3 billion 
instead of $64.8 billion--a difference of approximately $4.5 billion 
and a 10-year horizon present value at a seven percent discount rate of 
approximately $51.1 billion instead of $55.7 billion--a difference of 
approximately $4.6 billion. FinCEN assesses, however, that these long-
term figures obscure the practical reality that having to incur the 
same cost one year from the rule's effective date instead of two years 
from its effective date will have little impact on most existing 
reporting companies. The cost is the same either way. Additionally, 
FinCEN's effective date of January 1, 2024, will allow for a 
substantial outreach effort to notify reporting companies about the 
requirement and give existing reporting companies time to understand 
the requirement prior to the one-year timeline. Because a year's 
difference for initial compliance does not change the per reporting 
company impact and because of the value to law enforcement and other 
authorized users of having access to accurate, timely BOI in the 
relatively near term, given the time-

[[Page 59587]]

sensitive nature of investigations, FinCEN rejects this alternative.
b. Reporting Timeline for Updated BOI Reports
    As in the NPRM, FinCEN considered whether to require reporting 
companies to update BOI reports within 30 days of a change to submitted 
BOI (as proposed in the NPRM) or within one year of such change (the 
maximum permitted under the CTA).\411\ FinCEN compared the cost to the 
public of these two scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \411\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN assumed that allowing reporting companies to update reports 
within one year would result in ``bundled'' updates encompassing 
multiple changes. For example, a reporting company that knows one 
beneficial owner plans to dispose of ownership interests in two months 
while another plans to change residences in four might wait several 
months to report both changes to FinCEN. Meanwhile, law enforcement 
agencies and others with authorized access to--and interest in--the 
relevant reporting company's BOI would be operating with outdated 
information and potentially wasting time and resources. A shorter 30-
day requirement, on the other hand, would be more likely to result in 
reporting companies filing discrete reports associated with each 
individual change, allowing those with authorized access to BOI to stay 
better updated.
    From a cost perspective, FinCEN assumed that bundling would result 
in reporting companies submitting approximately half as many updated 
reports overall. FinCEN also assumed that bundled reports would have 
the same time burden per report as discrete updated reports, given that 
the expected BOSS functionality requires all information to be 
submitted on each updated report.
    Were FinCEN to require updates within one year instead of 30 days, 
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 potentially reduced burden in its estimate other 
than in the time required to collect information for an updated report, 
but discusses this potential collection cost more in the cost analysis 
of this alternative. FinCEN's cost estimates for updated reports also 
do not currently account for the possibility that individuals using 
FinCEN identifiers might further reduce costs by alleviating reporting 
companies of the responsibility of filing updated BOI for those 
beneficial owners. This is because those beneficial owners would be 
responsible for keeping the BOI associated with their FinCEN 
identifiers updated, consistent with the requirements of the rule.
    FinCEN estimated that requiring reporting companies to update 
reports in one year instead of 30 days results in an aggregate present 
value cost decrease of approximately $7.4 billion at a seven percent 
discount rate or $9.1 billion at a three percent discount rate over a 
10-year horizon. The annual aggregate cost savings to reporting 
companies (which FinCEN assumes are small entities) would be 
approximately $519.3 million in the first year and $1.1 billion each 
year thereafter. These cost savings would be due to reporting companies 
filing fewer reports.
    While FinCEN does not dismiss an aggregate cost savings to the 
public, the bureau does not view the savings in that amount as 
offsetting the corresponding degradation to BOI database quality that 
would come with allowing reporting companies to wait a full year to 
update BOI with FinCEN. As noted in both the preamble and NPRM, FinCEN 
considers keeping the database current and accurate as essential to 
keeping it highly useful, and that allowing reporting companies to wait 
to update beneficial ownership information for more than 30 days--or 
allowing them to report updates on only an annual basis--could cause a 
significant degradation in accuracy and usefulness of the database. 
While risks such as this are difficult to quantify, these concerns 
justify the increased cost.
c. Company Applicant Reporting for Existing Reporting Companies and 
Updates for All Reporting Companies
    In the NPRM, FinCEN considered requiring reporting companies in 
existence on the rule's effective date to report company applicant 
information with their initial reports. FinCEN further considered 
requiring all reporting companies to update changes to company 
applicant information as they occur in the future. Many comments 
criticized these requirements as overly burdensome. While the final 
rule does not include these requirements, this alternative analysis 
assesses what the cost would have been if those requirements had been 
retained.
    Numerous comments to the NPRM noted that existing entities would 
bear a significant cost in identifying company applicants, who may not 
have had contact with the reporting company since its initial 
formation. Based on comments, FinCEN assesses that each existing 
reporting company, regardless of structure, would have incurred an 
additional burden of 60 minutes per initial report in locating and 
reaching out to the company applicant(s). This estimate represents the 
average amount of time to locate information for company applicants, 
taking into account there may be instances where the company applicant 
is known, with easily obtained information, as well as other instances 
where the company applicant is unknown and difficult or impossible to 
locate. Using the wage estimate from the cost analysis, this would 
total an additional $56.76 per initial report in Year 1. FinCEN only 
applies this burden to Year 1 to reflect that it would affect existing 
entities' initial BOI reports, which would be filed within Year 1. 
FinCEN acknowledges that some of the initial BOI reports in Year 1 will 
be from newly created entities that would likely not incur this 
additional time burden, but to be conservative, FinCEN applied the 
burden to all initial reports in Year 1 for this analysis. At least one 
commenter also noted that such a requirement could result in costs to 
state governments, as reporting companies may enlist secretaries of 
states or similar offices to help look for historical company 
applicants, which FinCEN has not separately calculated, but assumes is 
part of the 60 minutes added to the burden estimate.
    In the NPRM, FinCEN estimated how many report updates would likely 
stem from changes to company applicant changes information.\412\ This 
was based on an assumption that 90 percent of BOI reports would have 
one company applicant while 10 percent of reports would have two 
company applicants. The RIA includes an updated distribution of 
reporting companies' beneficial ownership structures, which is applied 
to this analysis. The updated distribution estimates that 59 percent of 
reporting companies would have no unique company applicant (the company 
applicant would be the beneficial owner); 36.1 percent would have one 
company applicant; and 4.9 percent would have two company applicants. 
Applying the estimated cost of an updated report from the cost analysis 
(which increased from the cost assessed in the NPRM), this would result 
in an additional cost in Year 1 of $2.3 billion and $1 billion each 
year thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \412\ 86 FR 69963 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the burden of submitting initial company applicant 
information and subsequent report updates, companies may have also

[[Page 59588]]

incurred a cost associated with monitoring changes to company applicant 
information. This cost may have been significant, especially given that 
company applicants are less likely to stay in regular contact with 
associated reporting companies. This additional burden from ongoing 
monitoring is not separately estimated and could result in an 
underestimation of the cost savings to reporting companies in this 
alternative scenario.
    FinCEN estimated that requiring company applicant reporting and 
updates for existing entities results in a present value cost increase 
of approximately $8.3 billion at a seven percent discount rate or $9.9 
billion at a three percent discount rate over a 10-year horizon. FinCEN 
did not select this scenario, and thereby reduced the cost to small 
businesses.
d. Alternative Definitions of Beneficial Owner
    FinCEN considered many alternative definitions of ``beneficial 
owner'' due to comments received in the NPRM. Some of these comments 
proposed that the definition of beneficial owner should match the 
definition in the 2016 CDD Rule, under which one person must be 
identified as in substantial control, with up to four other beneficial 
owners identified by way of equity interests of 25 percent or more, for 
a maximum of 5 beneficial owners.
    Using the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of ``beneficial owner'' would 
decrease the time burden for some reporting companies reviewing which 
individuals to report as beneficial owners in their initial reports. 
This is because that definition is already known to most reporting 
companies, ties ownership to narrow ``equity interests'' rather than 
``ownership interests,'' and caps the maximum number of beneficial 
owners a company can have for purposes of the rule at five. This 
combination would make it easier for some entities to identify 
individuals to report as beneficial owners, and would reduce the number 
of individuals they have to report. However, FinCEN assesses that the 
majority of reporting companies are unlikely to have more than five 
beneficial owners to report under the rule. FinCEN assumes that 59 
percent of reporting companies will have one beneficial owner and an 
additional 36.1 percent of reporting companies will have four 
beneficial owners, and therefore would not significantly benefit in 
terms of reporting burden from the narrower definition.\413\ Most of 
the benefits of using the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of beneficial 
owner therefore seem likely to accrue to reporting companies with more 
complex beneficial ownership structures, which FinCEN estimates at 4.9 
percent of reporting companies. All reporting companies would benefit 
from being able to reuse information previously provided to financial 
institutions for compliance with a CDD rule with which they are already 
familiar (existing reporting companies) or that would have to be 
provided to financial institutions in order to obtain necessary 
financial services (new reporting companies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \413\ See Table 1 in the RIA and preceding text for discussion 
regarding the distribution of reporting companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because reporting companies are already familiar with the 2016 CDD 
Rule and would not need to spend time understanding the requirement, 
FinCEN assumes that adopting the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of 
``beneficial owner'' would reduce the time burden of the first portion 
of initial BOI reports' time burden by a third for all reporting 
companies, regardless of beneficial ownership structure. In the cost 
analysis, the first portion of initial BOI reports' time burden is to 
``read FinCEN BOI documents, understand the requirement, and analyze 
the reporting company definition.'' However, if the 2016 CDD Rule 
definition was adopted, ``understanding the requirement'' would not 
apply, as reporting companies are already familiar with the 
requirement. The second portion of initial reports' time burden, 
``identify . . . beneficial owners . . . ,'' would likely also be less 
burdensome given reporting companies may have already done this 
exercise to comply with the 2016 CDD Rule. However, FinCEN assumes the 
decreased burden in the first portion of the time burden will already 
account for this. Therefore, this decrease in burden will result in a 
per-report cost reduction of approximately $25.23 for reporting 
companies with a simple structure.
    Additionally, reporting companies with complex beneficial ownership 
structures, which FinCEN assessed to be 4.9 percent of reporting 
companies, will have a decreased time burden for other steps related to 
filing initial BOI reports and updated reports. This is because FinCEN 
currently assesses the costs to such entities in the scenario in which 
they report 10 people on their BOI report (8 beneficial owners and 2 
company applicants). If the 2016 CDD Rule definition of ``beneficial 
owner'' was adopted, then such entities would instead report the 
maximum of 5 beneficial owners and 2 company applicants, or 7 people. 
For consistency, FinCEN assumes that this would result in a reduction 
of a third of the time for ``identifying, collecting and reviewing 
information about beneficial owners and company applicants,'' and a 
reduction of 30 minutes in filling out and filing the report (10 
minutes for each of the 3 beneficial owners no longer reported, given 
the definition's cap). With all of these time burden reductions 
included, the initial report time burden estimate for reporting 
companies with complex beneficial ownership structures would be reduced 
by 390 minutes (650 minutes versus 260 minutes), which results in a per 
report cost reduction of approximately $369 ($2,614.87 versus 
$2,245.95).\414\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \414\ This cost analysis estimates an hourly wage rate of 
$56.76. Dividing this wage rate by 60 minutes yields a cost of 
approximately $0.95 per minute; if this rate is multiplied by 390 
minutes, the cost is approximately $369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to calculate the total cost change of the rule under this 
alternative, FinCEN assumes that all time burdens related to updated 
reports and FinCEN identifiers would remain the same with one 
exception. FinCEN applies the same time reduction for complexly 
structured reporting companies' updated report time burden as applied 
for initial reports (a decrease from 110 minutes to 80 minutes) to 
account for only 7 persons submitted on the form. Therefore, FinCEN 
assesses that adopting the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of ``beneficial 
owner'' would decrease the cost in Year 1 by $3.4 billion and $614.5 
million in each year thereafter. The present value cost decreases by 
approximately $7 billion at a seven percent discount rate or $8 billion 
at a three percent discount rate over a 10-year horizon. This benefit 
to small businesses would come at the significant cost of undermining 
the purpose of the CTA, which specifically calls for the identification 
of ``each beneficial owner of the applicable reporting company,'' 
without reference to a maximum number. As explained in the preamble, 
the 2016 CDD Rule's numerical limitation on beneficial owners 
contributes to the omission of persons that have substantial control of 
a reporting company, but are not reported. Replicating that approach in 
this rule would primarily benefit more complex entities, with the 
foreseeable consequence of allowing illicit actors to easily conceal 
their ownership or control of legal entities. This is a considerable 
cost to the U.S. economy that FinCEN assesses would not benefit

[[Page 59589]]

most reporting companies. This lopsided balance led FinCEN to reject 
suggestions to adopt the 2016 CDD Rule's definition of ``beneficial 
ownership'' in the final reporting rule.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Reform Act) requires that an agency prepare a 
budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a 
federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and 
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year, adjusted for inflation. FinCEN 
believes that the RIA provides the analysis required by the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The new reporting requirement contained in this rule (31 CFR 
1010.380) has been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., under control 
number 1506-ABXX. The PRA imposes certain requirements on federal 
agencies in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any 
collection of information as defined by the 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 OMB 
control number. The rule includes two information collection 
requirements: BOI reports, which will be submitted to FinCEN via a 
form, and FinCEN identifier information for individuals, which will be 
submitted to FinCEN via a web-based application. FinCEN removed the 
separate PRA analysis for foreign pooled investment vehicles reports 
that was included in the NPRM because such reports are now included in 
the BOI report burden and cost estimates.
    As discussed in the RIA, FinCEN revised estimates for the reporting 
requirements based on comments received in the NPRM and updates to 
underlying data sources. All revisions to the estimates are explained 
in the RIA.
i. BOI Reports
    Reporting Requirements: In accordance with the CTA, the rule 
imposes a new reporting requirement on certain entities to file with 
FinCEN reports that identify the entities' beneficial owners, and in 
certain cases their company applicants.\415\ The report must also 
contain information about the entity itself. The reporting company must 
certify that the report is true, correct, and complete. The rule also 
requires that reporting companies update the information in these 
reports as needed, and correct any previous incorrectly reported 
information, within specific timeframes. The collected information will 
be maintained by FinCEN and made accessible to authorized users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \415\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b) and 31 CFR 1010.380(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1506-0076.
    Frequency: As required.\416\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \416\ For BOI reports, there is an initial filing and subsequent 
filings; the latter are required as information changes or if 
previously reported information was incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of Affected Public: Domestic entities that are: (1) 
corporations; (2) limited liability companies; or (3) 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, and foreign entities that 
are: (1) corporations, limited liability companies, or other entities; 
(2) formed under the law of a foreign country; and (3) 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 rule does not require corporations, 
limited liability companies, or other entities that are described in 
any of 23 specific exemptions to file BOI reports.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: As explained in detail in the RIA, 
the number of entities that are reporting companies is difficult to 
estimate. FinCEN has updated the estimated number of entities that are 
reporting companies from the NPRM to account for comments and more 
recent sources of information. FinCEN assumes that existing entities 
that meet the definition of reporting company and are not exempt will 
submit their initial BOI reports in Year 1. Therefore, the estimated 
number of initial BOI reports in Year 1 is 32,556,929.\417\ In Year 2 
and beyond, FinCEN estimates that the number of initial BOI reports 
will be 4,998,468, which is the same estimate as the number of new 
entities per year that meet the definition of reporting company and are 
not exempt.\418\ The total five-year average of expected BOI initial 
reports is 10,510,160. In order to estimate the total burden hours and 
costs associated with the reporting requirement, FinCEN further 
assesses a distribution of the reporting companies' beneficial 
ownership structure. FinCEN assumes that 59 percent of reporting 
companies will have a simple structure (i.e., 1 beneficial owner who is 
also the company applicant), 36.1 percent will have an intermediate 
structure (i.e., 4 beneficial owners and 1 company applicant), and 4.9 
percent will have a complex structure (i.e., 8 beneficial owners and 2 
company applicants). FinCEN estimates that 6,578,732 updated reports 
would be filed in Year 1, and 14,456,452 such reports would be filed 
annually in Year 2 and beyond.\419\ The total five-year average of 
expected BOI update reports is 12,880,908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \417\ Please see RIA cost analysis for the underlying sources 
and analysis related to this estimate.
    \418\ Please see RIA cost analysis for the underlying sources 
and analysis related to this estimate. As noted therein, for 
analysis purposes FinCEN assumes that the number of new entities per 
year from years 2-10 will be the same as the 2024 new entity 
estimate, which accounts for a growth factor of 13.1 percent per 
year from the date of the underlying source (2020) through 2024. 
Annually thereafter, FinCEN assumes no change in the number of new 
entities. FinCEN provides an alternative cost analysis in the 
conclusion section where the 13.1 percent growth factor continues 
throughout the entire 10-year time horizon of the analysis (i.e., 
through 2033). However, this growth factor is possibly an 
overestimate given that it is a based on a relatively narrow 
timeframe of data (two years).
    \419\ Please see RIA cost analysis for the underlying sources 
and analysis related to these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Time per Respondent: FinCEN has updated the estimated 
time burden per respondent to account for comments received to the 
NPRM. Considering the comments and the rule, it is apparent that the 
time burden for filing initial BOI reports will vary depending on the 
complexity of the reporting company's structure. FinCEN therefore 
estimates a range of time burden associated with filing an initial BOI 
report to account for the likely variance among reporting companies. 
FinCEN estimates the average burden of reporting BOI as 90 minutes per 
response for reporting companies with simple beneficial ownership 
structures (40 minutes to read the form and understand the requirement, 
30 minutes to identify and collect information about beneficial owners 
and company applicants, 20 minutes to fill out and file the report, 
including attaching an image of an acceptable identification document 
for each beneficial owner and company applicant). FinCEN estimates the 
average burden of reporting BOI as 650 minutes per response for 
reporting companies with complex beneficial ownership structures (300 
minutes to read the form and understand the requirement, 240 minutes to 
identify and collect information about beneficial owners and company 
applicants, 110 minutes to fill out and file the report, including 
attaching an image of an acceptable identification document for each 
beneficial owner and company applicant). FinCEN estimates the

[[Page 59590]]

average burden of updating such reports for reporting companies with 
simple beneficial ownership structures as 40 minutes per update (20 
minutes to identify and collect information about beneficial owners or 
company applicants and 20 minutes to fill out and file the update). 
FinCEN estimates the average burden of updating such reports for 
reporting companies with complex beneficial ownership structures as 170 
minutes per update (60 minutes to identify and collect information 
about beneficial owners or company applicants and 110 minutes to fill 
out and file the update). FinCEN also assesses that reporting companies 
with intermediate beneficial ownership structures will have a time 
burden that is the average of the time burden for reporting companies 
with simple and complex structures reporting companies.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden Hours: FinCEN estimates that 
during Year 1, the filing of initial BOI reports will result in 
approximately 118,572,335 burden hours for reporting companies.\420\ In 
Year 2 and beyond, FinCEN estimates that the filing of initial BOI 
reports will result in 18,204,421 burden hours annually for new 
reporting companies.\421\ The five-year average of burden hours for 
initial BOI reports is 38,278,004 hours. FinCEN estimates that filing 
BOI updated reports in Year 1 would result in approximately 7,657,096 
burden hours for reporting companies.\422\ In Year 2 and beyond, the 
estimated number of burden hours is 16,826,105.\423\ The five-year 
average of burden hours for updated BOI reports is 14,992,203 hours. 
The total five-year average of burden hours for BOI reports is 
53,270,307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \420\ ((0.59 x 32,556,929) x (90/60)) + ((0.361 x 32,556,929) x 
(370/60)) + ((0.049 x 32,556,929) x (650/60)) = 118,572,335.
    \421\ ((0.59 x 4,998,468) x (90/60)) + ((0.361 x 4,998,468) x 
(370/60)) + ((0.049 x 4,998,468) x (650/60)) = 18,204,421.
    \422\ ((0.59 x 6,578,732) x (40/60)) + ((0.361 x 6, 578,732) x 
(105/60)) + ((0.049 x 6, 578,732) x (170/60)) = 7,657,096.
    \423\ ((0.59 x 14,456,452) x (40/60)) + ((0.361 x 14,456,452) x 
(105/60)) + ((0.049 x 14,456,452) x (170/60)) = 16,826,105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Reporting Cost: Considering the comments and the 
rule, it is apparent that the costs for filing initial BOI reports will 
vary depending on the complexity of the reporting company's structure. 
FinCEN therefore estimates a range of costs associated with filing an 
initial BOI report to account for the likely variance among reporting 
companies. FinCEN estimates the average cost of filing an initial BOI 
report per reporting company to be a range of $85.14-$2,614.87.\424\ 
FinCEN estimates the average cost of filing an updated BOI report per 
reporting company to be $37.84-$560.81.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \424\ (90/60) x $56.76 = $85.14 and ((650/60) x $56.76) + $2,000 
= $2,614.87.
    \425\ (40/60) x $56.76 = $37.84 and ((170/60) x $56.76) + $400 = 
$560.81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For initial BOI reports, the range of total costs in Year 1, 
assuming for the lower bound that all reporting companies are simple 
structures and assuming for the upper bound that all reporting 
companies are complex structures, is $2.8 billion-$85.1 billion.\426\ 
Applying the distribution of reporting companies' structure explained 
in connection with Table 1, FinCEN calculates total costs in Year 1 of 
initial BOI reports to be $21.7 billion.\427\ In Year 2 and onwards, in 
which FinCEN assumes that initial BOI reports will be filed by newly 
created entities, the range of total costs is $425.6 million-$13.1 
billion annually.\428\ Applying the reporting companies' structure 
distribution explained in connection with Table 1, the estimated total 
cost of initial BOI reports annually in Year 2 and onwards is $3.3 
billion.\429\ \430\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \426\ (32,556,929 x $85.14) = $2,771,769,963.58 and (32,556,929 
x $2,614.87) = $85,132,196,638.53.
    \427\ ((0.59 x 32,556,929) x $85.14) + ((0.361 x 32,556,929) x 
$1,350.00) + ((0.049 x 32,556,929) x $2,614.87) = 
$21,673,487,885.48.
    \428\ (4,998,468 x $85.14) = $425,550,075.79 and (4,998,468 x 
$2,614.87) = $13,070,353,315.07.
    \429\ ((0.59 x 4,998,468) x $85.14) + ((0.361 x 4,998,468) x 
$1,350.00) + ((0.049 x 4,998,468) x $2,614.87) = $3,327,532,419.21.
    \430\ FinCEN assumes that each reporting company will make one 
initial BOI report. Given the 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 
will submit their initial BOI reports in Year 1, totaling 32.6 
million reports. Additionally, FinCEN has applied a 6.83 percent 
growth factor each year since the date of the underlying source 
(2020) to account for the creation of new entities. For analysis 
purposes, FinCEN assumes that the number of new entities per year 
from years 2-10 will be the same as the 2024 new entity estimate, 
which accounts for a growth factor of 13.1 percent per year from the 
date of the underlying source (2020) through 2024. Annually 
thereafter, FinCEN assumes no change in the number of new entities. 
FinCEN provides an alternative cost analysis in the conclusion 
section where the 13.1 percent growth factor continues throughout 
the entire 10-year time horizon of the analysis (i.e., through 
2033). However, this growth factor is possibly an overestimate given 
that it is a based on a relatively narrow timeframe of data (two 
years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For updated BOI reports, the range of total costs in Year 1, 
assuming for the lower bound that all reporting companies are simple 
structures and assuming for the upper bound that all reporting 
companies are complex structures is $249 million-$3.7 billion.\431\ 
Applying the distribution of reporting companies' structure, FinCEN 
calculates total costs in Year 1 of updated BOI reports to be $1 
billion.\432\ In Year 2 and onwards, the range of total costs is $547 
million-$8.1 billion annually.\433\ Applying the reporting companies' 
structure distribution, the estimated total cost of updated BOI reports 
annually in Year 2 and onwards is $2.3 billion.\434\ The five-year 
average cost for initial reports is $6,996,732,512 and $2,033,391,518 
for updated reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \431\ (6,578,732 x $37.84) = $248,927,811.14 and (6,578,732 x 
$560.81) = $3,689,435,948.74.
    \432\ ((0.59 x 6,578,732) x $37.84) + ((0.361 x 6,578,732) x 
$299.33) + ((0.049 x 6,578,732) x $560.81) = $1,038,524,428.72.
    \433\ (14,456,452 x $37.84) = $547,007,086.12 and (14,456,452 x 
$560.81) = $8,107,360,919.04.
    \434\ ((0.59 x 14,456,452) x $37.84) + ((0.361 x 14,456,452) x 
$299.33) + ((0.049 x 14,456,452) x $560.81) = $2,282,108,290.77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note, there are no non-labor costs associated with these 
collections of information because FinCEN assumes that reporting 
companies already have the necessary equipment and tools to comply with 
the regulatory requirements.
ii. Individual FinCEN Identifiers
    Reporting Requirements: The rule would require the collection of 
information from individuals in order to issue them a FinCEN 
identifier.\435\ This is a voluntary collection. The rule will require 
individuals to report to FinCEN certain information about themselves to 
receive a FinCEN identifier, in accordance with the CTA.\436\ An 
individual is also required to submit updates of their identifying 
information as needed. FinCEN will store such information in its BOI 
database for access by authorized users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \435\ FinCEN is not separately calculating a cost estimate for 
entities requesting a FinCEN identifier because FinCEN assumes this 
would already be accounted for in the process and cost of submitting 
the BOI reports.
    \436\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(A)(i) and 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1506-0076.
    Frequency: As required.
    Description of Affected Public: The affected parties of this 
collection would overlap somewhat with parties required to submit BOI 
reports, given that reporting companies may request FinCEN identifiers. 
For individuals requesting FinCEN identifiers, FinCEN acknowledges that 
anyone who meets the statutory criteria could apply for a FinCEN 
identifier under the rule. However, the primary incentives for 
individual beneficial owners to apply for a FinCEN identifier are 
likely data security (an individual may see less risk in submitting 
personal identifiable information to FinCEN directly and

[[Page 59591]]

exclusively than doing so indirectly through one or more individuals at 
one or more reporting companies) and administrative efficiency (where 
an individual is likely to be identified as a beneficial owner of 
numerous reporting companies). Company applicants that are responsible 
for registering many reporting companies may have a similar 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 incentives described in 
the previous paragraph, which are based on assumptions, FinCEN 
estimates that the number of individuals who will apply for a FinCEN 
identifier will likely be relatively low. FinCEN is estimating that 
number to be approximately 1 percent of the reporting company 
estimates. This is the same assumption made by FinCEN in the NPRM to 
estimate the number of individuals applying for a FinCEN identifier. 
Given that the number of reporting companies estimated in the RIA has 
increased, this estimate will increase proportionally. FinCEN assumes 
that, similar to reporting companies' initial filings, there would be 
an initial influx of applications for a FinCEN identifier that would 
then decrease to a smaller annual rate of requests after Year 1. 
Therefore, FinCEN estimates that 325,569 individuals will apply for a 
FinCEN identifier during Year 1 and 49,985 individuals will apply for 
on a FinCEN identifier annually thereafter.\437\ The total five-year 
average of expected FinCEN identifier applications is 105,102. 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 based on the number of FinCEN identifier 
applications received in Year 1. However, FinCEN only applied the 
monthly probability of 0.0068021 (8.16 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 an individual's identifying information. This 
analysis estimated 12,180 updates in Year 1 and 26,575 annually 
thereafter.\438\ The total five-year average of estimated FinCEN 
identifier updates is 23,696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \437\ 32,556,929 x 0.01 = 325,569 and 4,998,468 x 0.01 = 49,985, 
respectively.
    \438\ Please see RIA cost analysis for the underlying sources 
and analysis related to these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 an 
image 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 108,535,\439\ with an annual burden of 16,662 hours 
thereafter.\440\ The five-year average of initial application burden is 
35,034 hours. FinCEN estimates the burden hours of individuals updating 
FinCEN identifier related information to be 2,030 in Year 1,\441\ with 
an annual burden of 4,429 hours thereafter.\442\ The five-year average 
of updated application burden is 3,949 hours. The total five-year 
average of time burden is 38,983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \439\ 325,569 x (20/60) = 108,535.
    \440\ 49,985 x (20/60) = 16,662.
    \441\ 12,180 x (10/60) = 2,030.
    \442\ 26,575 x (10/60) = 4,429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Reporting Cost: The total cost of FinCEN identifier 
applications for individuals in Year 1 is estimated to be $6.2 million, 
with an annual cost of $945,667 thereafter.\443\ The five-year average 
of initial applications cost is $1,988,431. The total cost of FinCEN 
identifier updates for individuals in Year 1 is estimated to be 
$115,219, with an annual cost of $251,386 thereafter.\444\ The five-
year average of updated applications cost is $224,153. The total five-
year average cost is $2,212,584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \443\ ($56.76 x (20/60)) x 325,569 = $6,159,488.81 and ($56.76 x 
(20/60)) x 49,985 = $945,666.84.
    \444\ ($56.76 x (10/60)) x 12,180 = $115,218.68 and ($56.76 x 
(10/60)) x 26,575 = $251,386.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule a ``major 
rule,'' for purposes of Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional 
Review Act or CRA).\445\ Under the CRA, a major rule generally may take 
effect no earlier than 60 days after the rule is published in the 
Federal Register.\446\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \445\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2) et seq.
    \446\ 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Parts 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, the U.S. Department of 
the Treasury and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network amend 31 CFR part 
1010 as follows:

PART 1010--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1010 is amended 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 subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  1010.380  Reports of beneficial ownership information

    (a) Reports required; timing of reports--(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:
    (i) Any domestic reporting company created on or after January 1, 
2024 shall file a report within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the 
date on which it receives actual notice that its creation has become 
effective or the date on which a secretary of state or similar office 
first provides public notice, such as through a publicly accessible 
registry, that the domestic reporting company has been created.
    (ii) Any entity that becomes a foreign reporting company on or 
after January 1, 2024 shall file a report within 30 calendar days of 
the earlier of the date on which it receives actual notice that it has 
been registered to do business or the date on which a secretary of 
state or similar office first provides public

[[Page 59592]]

notice, such as through a publicly accessible registry, that the 
foreign reporting company has been registered to do business.
    (iii) Any domestic reporting company created before January 1, 2024 
and any entity that became a foreign reporting company before January 
1, 2024 shall file a report not later than January 1, 2025.
    (iv) Any entity that no longer meets the criteria for any 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 exemption.
    (2) Updated report. (i) If there is any change with respect to 
required information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning a 
reporting company or its beneficial owners, including any change with 
respect to who is a beneficial owner or information reported for any 
particular beneficial owner, the reporting company shall file an 
updated report in the form and manner specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section within 30 calendar days after the date on which such 
change occurs.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) If an individual is a beneficial owner of a reporting company 
by virtue of property interests or other rights subject to transfer 
upon death, and such individual dies, a change with respect to required 
information will be deemed to occur when the estate of the 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, to the extent 
appropriate, identify any new beneficial owners.
    (iv) If a reporting company has reported information with respect 
to a parent or legal guardian of a minor child pursuant to paragraphs 
(b)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(i) of this section, a change with respect to 
required information will be deemed to occur when the minor child 
attains the age of majority.
    (v) With respect to an image of an identifying document required to 
be reported pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section, a 
change with respect to required information will be deemed to occur 
when the name, date of birth, address, or unique identifying number on 
such document changes.
    (3) Corrected report. If any report under this section was 
inaccurate when filed and remains inaccurate, the reporting company 
shall file a corrected report in the form and manner specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section within 30 calendar days after the date on 
which such reporting company becomes aware or has reason to know of the 
inaccuracy. A corrected report filed under this paragraph (a)(3) within 
this 30-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 the inaccurate report was filed.
    (b) Content, 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 or application shall certify that the report or application 
is true, correct, 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 legal name of the reporting company;
    (B) Any trade name or ``doing business as'' name of the reporting 
company;
    (C) A complete current address consisting of:
    (1) In the case of a reporting company with a principal place of 
business in the United States, the street address of such principal 
place of business; and
    (2) In all other cases, the street address of the primary location 
in the United States where the reporting company conducts business;
    (D) The State, Tribal, or foreign jurisdiction of formation of the 
reporting company;
    (E) For a foreign reporting company, the State or Tribal 
jurisdiction where such company first registers; and
    (F) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Taxpayer Identification 
Number (TIN) (including an Employer Identification Number (EIN)) of the 
reporting company, or where a foreign reporting company has not been 
issued a TIN, a tax identification number issued by a foreign 
jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction;
    (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) A complete current address consisting of:
    (1) In the case of a company applicant who forms or registers an 
entity in the course of such company applicant's business, the street 
address of such business; or
    (2) In any other case, the individual's residential street address;
    (D) A unique identifying number and the issuing jurisdiction 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), (b)(1)(ii)(D)(2), or 
(b)(1)(ii)(D)(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.
    (2) Special rules--(i) Reporting company owned by exempt entity. If 
one or more exempt entities 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 exclusively by virtue of the individual's ownership interest in 
such exempt entities, the report may include the names of the exempt 
entities in lieu of 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)(3)(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 59593]]

entity, the entity shall report information with respect to the 
individual who has the greatest authority over the strategic management 
of the entity.
    (iv) Company applicant for existing companies. Notwithstanding 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if a reporting company was 
created or registered before January 1, 2024, the reporting company 
shall report that fact, but is not required to report information with 
respect to any company applicant.
    (3) Contents of updated or corrected reports--(i) Updated reports--
in general. An updated report required to be filed pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall reflect any change with respect 
to required information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning a 
reporting company or its beneficial owners.
    (ii) Updated reports--newly exempt entities. An updated report 
required to be filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section 
shall indicate that the filing entity is no longer a reporting company.
    (iii) Corrected reports. A corrected report required to be filed 
pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall correct all 
inaccuracies in the information previously reported to FinCEN.
    (4) FinCEN identifier--(i) Application. (A) An individual may 
obtain a FinCEN identifier by submitting to FinCEN an application 
containing the information about the individual described in 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 (including any successor reporting company) may obtain only one 
FinCEN identifier.
    (ii) Use of the 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) [Reserved]
    (iii) Updates and corrections. (A) Any individual that has obtained 
a FinCEN identifier shall update or correct any information previously 
submitted to FinCEN in an application for such FinCEN identifier.
    (1) If there is any change with respect to required information 
previously submitted to FinCEN in such application, the individual 
shall file an updated application reflecting such change within 30 
calendar days after the date on which such change occurs.
    (2) If any such application was inaccurate when filed and remains 
inaccurate, the individual shall file a corrected application 
correcting all inaccuracies within 30 calendar days after the date on 
which the individual becomes aware or has reason to know of the 
inaccuracy. A corrected application filed under this paragraph within 
this 30-day period will 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 the inaccurate application was submitted.
    (B) Any reporting company that has obtained a FinCEN identifier 
shall file an updated or corrected report to update or correct any 
information previously submitted to FinCEN. 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) Definition of reporting company. 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) A limited liability company; or
    (C) 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) Securities 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 services business. Any money transmitting business 
registered with FinCEN under 31 U.S.C. 5330, and any money services 
business registered with FinCEN under 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 sections 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

[[Page 59594]]

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 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) 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 continue to be 
described in this paragraph (c)(1)(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 whose 
ownership interests are controlled or wholly owned, directly or 
indirectly, by one or more entities described in paragraphs (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 
twelve 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 
twelve month period; and
    (F) Does not otherwise hold any kind or type of assets, whether in 
the United States or abroad, including 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--(i) Definition of substantial control. An 
individual exercises substantial control over a reporting company if 
the individual:
    (A) Serves as a senior officer of the reporting company;
    (B) Has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior 
officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body);
    (C) Directs, determines, or has substantial influence over 
important decisions made by the reporting company, including decisions 
regarding:
    (1) 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;
    (2) The reorganization, dissolution, or merger of the reporting 
company;
    (3) Major expenditures or investments, issuances of any equity, 
incurrence of any significant debt, or approval of the operating budget 
of the reporting company;
    (4) The selection or termination of business lines or ventures, or 
geographic focus, of the reporting company;

[[Page 59595]]

    (5) Compensation schemes and incentive programs for senior 
officers;
    (6) The entry into or termination, or the fulfillment or non-
fulfillment, of significant contracts;
    (7) 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; or
    (D) Has any other form of substantial control over the reporting 
company.
    (ii) Direct or indirect exercise of substantial control. An 
individual may directly or indirectly, including as a trustee of a 
trust or similar arrangement, exercise substantial control over a 
reporting company through:
    (A) Board representation;
    (B) Ownership or control of a majority of the voting power or 
voting rights of the reporting company;
    (C) Rights associated with any financing arrangement or interest in 
a company;
    (D) Control over one or more intermediary entities that separately 
or collectively exercise substantial control over a reporting company;
    (E) Arrangements or financial or business relationships, whether 
formal or informal, with other individuals or entities acting as 
nominees; or
    (F) any other contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, 
or otherwise.
    (2) Ownership Interests--(i) Definition of ownership interest. The 
term ``ownership interest'' means:
    (A) Any equity, stock, or similar instrument; preorganization 
certificate or subscription; or transferable share of, or voting trust 
certificate or certificate of deposit for, an equity security, interest 
in a joint venture, or certificate of interest in a business trust; in 
each such case, without regard to whether any such instrument is 
transferable, is classified as stock or anything similar, or confers 
voting power or voting rights;
    (B) Any capital or profit interest in an entity;
    (C) Any instrument convertible, with or without consideration, into 
any share or instrument described in paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A), or (B) 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)(2)(i)(A), or (B) of this section, regardless of 
whether characterized as debt;
    (D) Any put, call, straddle, or other option or privilege of buying 
or selling any of the items described in paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A), (B), 
or (C) of this section without being bound to do so, except to the 
extent that such option or privilege is created and held by a third 
party or third parties without the knowledge or involvement of the 
reporting company; or
    (E) Any other instrument, contract, arrangement, understanding, 
relationship, or mechanism used to establish ownership.
    (ii) Ownership or control of ownership interest. An individual may 
directly or indirectly own or control an ownership interest of a 
reporting company through any contract, arrangement, understanding, 
relationship, or otherwise, including:
    (A) Joint ownership with one or more other persons of an undivided 
interest in such ownership interest;
    (B) Through another individual acting as a nominee, intermediary, 
custodian, or agent on behalf of such 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; or
    (D) 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.
    (iii) Calculation of the total ownership interests of a reporting 
company. In determining whether an individual owns or controls at least 
25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company, the total 
ownership interests that an individual owns or controls, directly or 
indirectly, shall be calculated as a percentage of the total 
outstanding ownership interests of the reporting company as follows:
    (A) Ownership interests of the individual shall be calculated at 
the present time, and any options or similar interests of the 
individual shall be treated as exercised;
    (B) For reporting companies that issue capital or profit interests 
(including entities treated as partnerships for federal income tax 
purposes), the individual's ownership interests are the individual's 
capital and profit interests in the entity, calculated as a percentage 
of the total outstanding capital and profit interests of the entity;
    (C) For corporations, entities treated as corporations for federal 
income tax purposes, and other reporting companies that issue shares of 
stock, the applicable percentage shall be the greater of:
    (1) the total combined voting power of all classes of ownership 
interests of the individual as a percentage of total outstanding voting 
power of all classes of ownership interests entitled to vote, or
    (2) the total combined value of the ownership interests of the 
individual as a percentage of the total outstanding value of all 
classes of ownership interests; and
    (D) If the facts and circumstances do not permit the calculations 
described in either paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) or (C) to be performed 
with reasonable certainty, any individual who owns or controls 25 
percent or more of any class or type of ownership interest of a 
reporting company shall be deemed to own or control 25 percent or more 
of the ownership interests of the reporting company.
    (3) Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
paragraph (d), 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)(2)(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, whose substantial control over or economic benefits from such 
entity are derived solely from the employment status of the employee, 
provided that such person is not a senior officer as defined in 
paragraph (f)(8) of this section;
    (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)(3)(v), a creditor is an individual who meets the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section solely through rights or 
interests for the payment of a predetermined sum of money, such as a 
debt incurred by the reporting company, or a loan covenant or other 
similar right associated with such right to receive payment that is 
intended to secure the right to receive payment or enhance the 
likelihood of repayment.

[[Page 59596]]

    (e) Company applicant. For purposes of this section, the term 
``company applicant'' means:
    (1) For a domestic reporting company, the individual who directly 
files the document that creates the domestic reporting company as 
described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section;
    (2) For a foreign reporting company, the individual who directly 
files the document that first registers the foreign reporting company 
as described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section; and
    (3) Whether for a domestic or a foreign reporting company, the 
individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling 
such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing of 
the document.
    (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).
    (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 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 or will be so identified in the next annual 
updating amendment to Form ADV required to be filed by the applicable 
investment adviser pursuant to rule 204-1 under the Investment Advisers 
Act of 1940 (17 CFR 275.204-1).
    (8) Senior officer. The term ``senior officer'' means any 
individual holding the position or exercising the authority of a 
president, 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. 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. For 
purposes of this paragraph (g):
    (1) The term ``person'' includes any individual, reporting company, 
or other entity.
    (2) The term ``beneficial ownership information'' includes any 
information provided to FinCEN under this section.
    (3) 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.
    (4) A person fails to report complete or updated beneficial 
ownership information to FinCEN if, with respect to an entity:
    (i) such entity is required, pursuant to title 31, United States 
Code, section 5336, or its implementing regulations, to report 
information to FinCEN;
    (ii) the reporting company fails to report such information to 
FinCEN; and
    (iii) such person either causes the failure, or is a senior officer 
of the entity at the time of the failure.

Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2022-21020 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P