I was hoping that I could report to my readers that the turbulent and lengthy ride of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was, one way or another, finally over! Unfortunately, I am unable to deliver that news today. Instead, I am briefly reporting on the most recent development in the crazy saga.
From previous reporting, you may recall that, on January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. et al v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States et al., lifted the Fifth Circuit’s injunction, that was preventing the government from enforcing the CTA. However, as also reported, the SCOTUS decision had no practical impact on the government’s ability to enforce the CTA because another court (the Eastern District of Texas) in a different case (Smith et. al. v. U.S. Department of Treasury et. al.) had issued (on January 7, 2025) a nationwide injunction against the government’s enforcement of the CTA. Accordingly, that court’s injunction, despite the high court’s decision in Texas Top Cop Shot, Inc., remained in place.
As I reported yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. et al v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States et al., lifted the Fifth Circuit’s injunction, that had been preventing the government from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). However, as reported by Mengqi Sun of The Wall Street Journal, there is another Texas court (the Eastern District of Texas) where the judge issued a nationwide injunction against the government’s enforcement of the CTA and that the injunction remains in place. The Wall Street Journal further reported that there has been no appeal of that decision to a higher court.
I last reported on December 27, 2024, that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) hit yet another speed bump. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) put the CTA on ice as of December 24, 2024, restraining the government from enforcing the new law while it heard the underlying matter in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. et al v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States et al.
On December 31, 2024, the government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”), asking it to remove the stay, allowing the government to enforce the CTA pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit case and the Supreme Court’s decision should it accept a writ of certiorari and ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the CTA.
INTRODUCTION
On December 6, 2024, I reported that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. et al v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States et al, issued a 79-page decision, including a preliminary injunction, creating a nationwide prohibition against the government enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).
As suspected, the government immediately filed an emergency appeal, asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) to stay the injunction and to hear its arguments in favor of overturning the Texas court’s decision.
I have yet again encountered another important development diverting me from my multi-part blog series on Subchapter S. Earlier this week, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) hit a massive obstacle. I feel compelled to report about it.
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. et al v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States et al, issued a 79-page decision, including a preliminary injunction, creating a nationwide prohibition against government enforcement of the CTA.
This decision has created a tsunami of banter among members of the legal profession, the media and the business community. While the decision appears to have delivered an early holiday cheer to many, caution is advised. As my late tax professor, James J. Freeland, would have advised his students after reading the decision, pause for cause!
The Wild Journey
I am taking time out from my multi-part series on Subchapter S to report on the Washington capital gains tax. As you know, I have reported in several prior blog posts on the numerous challenges confronting the tax. The long, interesting and turbulent ride of this legislation, however, may be over!
Initiative 2109 was presented to Washington state voters. A “yes” vote for the initiative would repeal the new tax, while a “no” vote would retain the new tax.
On November 5, 2024, the voters spoke loud and clear – they overwhelmingly voted to retain the Washington capital gains tax. A whopping 64.1 percent of the voters (2,341,553 voters) voted “no” on the initiative, while 35.9 percent of the voters (1,312,162 voters) voted “yes.”
On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the landmark case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et. al.[2] Interestingly, the Loper decision was rendered exactly 40 years and three days after the U.S. Supreme Court had decided Chevron.
I expect there will be a slew of law review and other scholarly journal articles that will examine in detail the court’s decision and its impact on American jurisprudence. This blog article is not designed to provide that type of commentary. Rather, my aim is to provide readers with a succinct but clear understanding of the Loper ruling and its likely implications relative to the administration of our federal tax laws.
As reported last week, opponents of the Washington state capital gains tax, after ultimately losing in the courts to have the legislation stricken as unconstitutional, decided to take the matter to the voters. They have proposed a ballot measure which if successful, among other things, will repeal the tax.
As part of the presentation of the ballot measure in the voters’ pamphlet, the State of Washington election officials recently announced that the explanation of the ballot measure must include a disclosure of the revenue impact its passage would have on the state’s revenue – a drop of roughly $1 billion per year. Proponents of the ballot measure promptly filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington for Thurston County (“Court”) to block the inclusion of the revenue impact in the voter packets. A hearing in the case occurred on June 7, 2024.
Judge Allyson Zipp, appointed to the Court by Governor Jay Inslee in 2021, presided over the case. The oral arguments were interesting.
I have reported in several prior blog posts the significant events impacting the newly enacted Washington state capital gains tax. The turbulent ride of this legislation continues!
The Colorful Journey
The colorful journey of the Washington capital gains tax started with Senate Bill 5096 ("SB 5096"). The bill was originally introduced to the Washington State Senate on January 6, 2021. It was passed by the Senate on March 6, 2021, after a hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, three readings and some floor amendments. The bill's passage margin in the Senate was narrow, receiving 25 affirmative votes and 24 negative votes.
SB 5096 continued its journey to the Washington State House of Representatives, where the bill was introduced on March 9, 2021. After three readings and two separate votes, as well as some amendments, the bill was passed in the House on April 21, 2021. As was the case in the Senate, its passage margin in the House was narrow, receiving 52 affirmative votes and 46 negative votes.
Overview
I am taking a break from my multi-part blog series, A Journey Through Subchapter S / A Review of the Not So Obvious & The Traps That Exist For The Unwary, to provide another update on the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The CTA continues to get a lot of media attention as there have been judicial and legislative efforts to obtain its repeal or to strike it down as unconstitutional.
As reported on June 7, 2023, the CTA is a new federal law that requires most U.S.-based companies, including corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies, to report information regarding their “beneficial owners” to the federal government through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and a new FinCEN IT system known as the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (“BOSS”). Lawmakers enacted the CTA to help the government combat money laundering, financing of terrorist activities, tax fraud and other illegal activities.
RSS Feed
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on LinkedIn
Larry J. Brant
Editor
Larry J. Brant is a Shareholder and the Chair of the Tax & Benefits practice group at Foster Garvey, a law firm based out of the Pacific Northwest, with offices in Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C.; New York, New York, Spokane, Washington; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Beijing, China. Mr. Brant is licensed to practice in Oregon and Washington. His practice focuses on tax, tax controversy and transactions. Mr. Brant is a past Chair of the Oregon State Bar Taxation Section. He was the long-term Chair of the Oregon Tax Institute, and is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Portland Tax Forum. Mr. Brant has served as an adjunct professor, teaching corporate taxation, at Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College. He is an Expert Contributor to Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Catalyst. Mr. Brant is a Fellow in the American College of Tax Counsel. He publishes articles on numerous income tax issues, including Taxation of S Corporations, Reasonable Compensation, Circular 230, Worker Classification, IRC § 1031 Exchanges, Choice of Entity, Entity Tax Classification, and State and Local Taxation. Mr. Brant is a frequent lecturer at local, regional and national tax and business conferences for CPAs and attorneys. He was the 2015 Recipient of the Oregon State Bar Tax Section Award of Merit.
