UPDATED: BOI Reporting Rules—The Saga Continues

RFD-TV Legal Expert Roger McEowen with Kansas’ Washburn School of Law breaks it down in his latest Firm to Farm blog post.

court documents_AdobeStock_501810199.png

Adobe Stock

UPDATE (12/27/2024):

The Fifth Circuit has vacated its decision of Monday, Dec. 23, which restores the nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the beneficial ownership information reporting rules. The merits panel of the Fifth Circuit stated in its order Thursday evening, December 26, that its decision was necessary “to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties’ weighty substantive arguments.” The court also expedited the appeal to the “next available oral argument panel,” which it appears could be the week of January 6, 2025, based upon the court’s published schedule.

Previous Article

Late today (12/23/2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction imposed by a federal district court in Texas against the government’s enforcement of the BOI reporting rules. This means that as of now (early evening on 12/23/24), the reports must be filed by covered entities by Jan. 1, 2025. The appellate court cited the government’s authority to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause to determine that the government was likely to prevail on the merits.

But that’s the point. The reporting requirement is not triggered on a business engaging in commerce. It’s triggered upon registering with a state office regardless of whether any commerce has been conducted.

Nevertheless, Jan. 1 is not the key date to remember — it’s now January 13, 2025. Here’s what the FINCEN has posted on its website:

“In light of a December 23, 2024, federal Court of Appeals decision, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. However, because the Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect, we have extended the reporting deadline as follows:

  • Reporting companies that were created or registered prior to January 1, 2024, have until January 13, 2025, to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN. (These companies would otherwise have been required to report by January 1, 2025.)
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after September 4, 2024, that had a filing deadline between December 3, 2024, and December 23, 2024, have until January 13, 2025, to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after December 3, 2024, and on or before December 23, 2024, have an additional 21 days from their original filing deadline to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies that qualify for disaster relief may have extended deadlines that fall beyond January 13, 2025. These companies should abide by whichever deadline falls later.
  • Reporting companies that are created or registered in the United States on or after January 1, 2025, have 30 days to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN after receiving actual or public notice that their creation or registration is effective.”

The movement to Jan. 13, 2025, will allow the new Congress to address the matter (which it should have taken care of in the year-end legislation). Of course, if an emergency writ is filed with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could address the matter before that. I suspect this issue is far from over.

Stay tuned…

Related Stories
For the broader agricultural industry, a railroad antitrust case in Kansas could lead to the dismantling of legacy regulatory shields, creating a more fluid, market-driven transportation grid that prioritizes moving crops efficiently over protecting historic rail monopolies.
Agriculture avoided major disruptions, but trade uncertainty remains elevated.
The debate now matters as much as the policy — market rules and regulatory clarity depend on whether Congress can finish the bill this year.
The long-term viability of a ranching operation often hinges on how effectively its owners navigate the overlapping layers of IRS regulations, state tax incentives, and USDA disaster programs.
Congresswoman Celeste Maloy of Utah joins Champions of Rural America to discuss her new leadership role in the Western Caucus and her perspective on the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s tariff policy.
Tommy Roach with Nachurs Alpine Solutions discuss fertilizer decision-making, plant fertility strategies, and what farmers can learn at Commodity Classic.

LATEST STORIES BY THIS AUTHOR:

A recent news story involving a group of farmers in Mississippi reveals the potential downside of selling grain under a deferred payment contract. The risk of deferred payment ag commodity sales and what can be done for protection—that is the topic of today’s blog post.
Recently, a bank in Texas got confused on the financing rules governing agricultural crops and lost its security interest as a result. Ag financing and priority rules among competing security interests—that is the topic of today’s post.
The classification of persons conducting farming operations for a farm landowner—that is the topic of today’s blog post by RFD-TV farm-legal expert Roger A. McEowen.
Farm-legal expert Roger A. McEowen discusses avoiding contractual obligations in times of pandemic.
Is a handshake as good as your word? That is the topic of today’s blog post by RFD-TV farm legal expert Roger A. McEowen — the ability to enforce oral contracts for the sale of goods.
When it comes to Kansas’ “Right to Farm” law, and property rights with respect to road ditch right-of-ways and the common law and trespassing and nuisance — how far can one go without infringing on others? RFD-TV’s Farm legal expert Roger McEowen details a recent opinion by the Kansas Court of Appeals in a case involving a hog farmer, which, he says, is perhaps the most egregious ag nuisance case that has ever gone to an appellate-level court in Kansas.