While real estate practitioners are struggling to implement office procedures to accommodate the reporting requirements of the new Federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), one court has held the Act to be unconstitutional.
National Small Business Association v. Yellen, Case 5:22-cv-1448-LCB (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, March 1, 2024) held that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate millions of entities and their stakeholders the moment they obtain formal corporate status from a state. The government had argued that the foreign affairs power and the Commerce Clause grant the requisite authority because the purpose of the CTA is to prevent money laundering and tax evasion, especially by offshore actors.
The case begins with this language, “The late Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that federal judges should have a rubber stamp that says STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL.” In other words, the Constitution does not allow judges to strike down a law merely because it is burdensome, foolish, or offensive. This opinion states that the inverse is also true—the wisdom of a policy is no guarantee of its constitutionality. Even in the pursuit of sensible and praiseworthy ends, Congress may enact smart laws that violate the Constitution. This case illustrates that principle, according to the Northern District of Alabama.
We’ll have to wait and see how appellate courts address this issue. In the meantime, we’ll have to comply!
Chicago Title recently published an update on an IRS regulation, and I wanted to make sure readers of this blog have the most current information. Dirt lawyers know that cash payments greater than $10,000 must be reported to the IRS through form 8300.
For a primer on this requirement, review IRS Publication 1544 here. The government’s stated goal in imposing this requirement is to detect money laundering and to catch tax evaders, terrorists and those who profit from the drug trade.
Effective January 1, 2024, the IRS updated its regulations to require businesses that file 10 total information returns (such as 1099, W2 and, now 8300) to files these forms electronically unless the business requests and receives a waiver each tax year. You can view the revised regulations here.
On February 7, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the stated purpose of combatting money laundering in residential real estate transactions. You can review the proposed rule and a related fact sheet here.
The proposed rule would require certain professionals, including attorneys, involved in real estate closings to report information to FinCEN about cash transfers of residential real estate to legal entities and trusts. The agency’s press release indicates the proposal is tailored to target transfers that are high-risk for money laundering. No reporting would be required for transfers to individuals.
The information to be reported would include:
Beneficial ownership information for the legal entity or trust receiving the property;
Information about individuals representing the transferee legal entity or transferee trust;
Information about the business filing the report;
Information about the real property being sold or transferred;
Information about the seller; and
Information about any payments made.
A Geographic Targeting Order program has been in place for several years requiring this type of reporting in certain high-priced locations. The new rule would replace the Geographic Targeting Order with nationwide reporting.
FinCEN recognizes that the beneficial ownership information required under this proposed rule is also collected under the new Corporate Transparency Act, but states that the information will serve two different purposes.
The proposed rule would require reporting on single-family houses, townhouses, condominiums and buildings designed for occupancy by one to four families. It would also require reporting on transfers on unimproved land that is zoned or permitted for occupancy by one to four families.
Transfers would be reportable regardless of price. Gifts and other transactions where no consideration is exchanged are reportable. Exempted transactions include easements, transfers resulting from the death of the property owner, transfers resulting from divorce, and transfers made to a bankruptcy estate.
The agency encourages written comments in response to the proposed rule for 60 days. Closing lawyers, I encourage you to read the information at the links above and to make comments.
This blog has previously discussed Florida’s legislation that requires regular building inspections for condominium projects of three stores and higher and requires homeowners’ associations to maintain reserves. The act was unanimously passed by both houses, and Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law on June 9, 2023.
Under the new law, inspections are required when a condominium building reaches 30 years of age and every ten years thereafter. For buildings within three miles of the coast, the first inspection is required at 25 years of age.
In addition, mandatory structural integrity reserve studies are required every ten years under the new law, and reserves are required to be maintained based on the studies. The reserves must be fully funded. The power of the HOA to waive reserves will be removed, effective December 31, 2024.
New Jersey has passed similar legislation. These laws apparently attempt to exchange some short-term pain in maintaining reserves for long-term stability.
These laws will require higher assessments in most cases, and that will likely mean lower prices for sellers. Buyers will have to become more discerning as to the long-term financial implications. I’ve also seen the argument made that with the great number of condominium projects in Florida, there may be too few professionals available to accomplish the inspections and repair estimates.
The main downside of such legislation is that it will make condominium living more expensive and may price some retirees and lower-income individuals out of the market entirely. Insurance costs are also increasing.
But, logically, the cost of maintenance should be factored into every residential property purchase. The ability of an owners’ association to waive reserves and thereby kick the maintenance can down the road is a dangerous proposition.
Perhaps older condominium projects will be terminated, and developers will seek to take advantage of financial distress by seeking to develop new condominium projects. New construction will certainly be favored under the new laws.
Should we pass similar legislation in South Carolina? Let me know what you think.
The Belle W. Baruch Foundation (Baruch) owns approximately 8,000 acres of high ground in Georgetown County. Baruch brought a declaratory judgment action* against the State of South Carolina, claiming it also holds title to 8,000 acres of adjoining marshland.
The State answered, asserting its status as the presumptive titleholder of all marshlands, and counterclaimed that the public holds a presumptive easement over the marshlands. Alternatively, the State claimed that the property had been dedicated to the public.
DeBordieu is an upscale private coastal community which shares a boundary with the disputed marshlands.
Anyone familiar with Georgetown County history knows that Belle Baruch was the daughter of Bernard Baruch, a wealthy landowner and statesman who advised President Wilson during World War I and President Roosevelt during World War II.
Baruch owned Hobcaw Barony, a former rice plantation, and surrounding real estate. President Roosevelt famously convalesced during one of his illnesses at the property. Belle Baruch inherited much of the property and donated it to the Foundation as a nature and research preserve.
Hobcaw has relationships with the University of South Carolina and Clemson University for the purposes of conservation and other research. The property is also the location for delightful Lowcountry tours and events like oyster roasts and holiday parties. I learned on one of these tours that Belle Baruch was interested in preserving the real estate, but not the buildings. The funds she left were not intended for the upkeep of the buildings. The Foundation raises money for that purpose.
I highly recommend that locals and tourists take the time to visit Hobcaw. It’s a beautiful property that reminds me of George Washington’s Mount Vernon. If funds had been left to preserve the buildings, Hobcaw would likely be as impressive as Mount Vernon.
According to the lawsuit, DeBordieu’s members have a history of using the marshland for shellfish harvesting, crabbing, wade fishing and similar recreational activities. In the early 1970’s, DeBordieu created a system of creeks and canals allowing its members access to the marshland and to the Atlantic Ocean. DeBordieu has periodically dredged its canals to maintain its access to the marshland.
DeBordieu sought intervention as a matter of right or, alternatively, permissive intervention. The circuit court denied intervention under both theories.
The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that precedent and Rule 24(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure set a liberal standard for intervention. Although the State and DeBordieu similarly claim that if Baruch owns the disputed property, the marshlands are encumbered by the States and/or DeBordieu’s easements, it is not accurate to classify those easement claims as the same interest in the property.
The State’s and DeBordieu’s claims are independent of each other and require different proof, according to the Court.
The Court also addressed the practical effect of denying the motion to intervene. A declaratory judgment must name all parties having a claim or interest in the matter and must not prejudice the rights of persons who are not parties to the proceeding. The Court concluded that a judgment valid against the State but not against others claiming an interest in the marshlands would not be an efficient use of judicial resources.
DeBordieu is allowed to intervene, and the litigation will proceed. We will keep you posted.
*The Belle W. Baruch Foundation v. The State of South Carolina, South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 6043 (January 17, 2024.)
This news is only real estate adjacent, but it should be of interest to all of us who represent consumer clients who attempt to qualify for loans.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a press release on January 17 proposing to rein in excessive overdraft fees charged by large financial institutions. The agency estimates this rule change would save consumers $3.5 billion or more per year.
You can read the press release here. The press release includes relevant attachments that include the rule, a fact sheet and other documents that should provide the information you need on this topic.
The Truth in Lending Act, enacted in 1968, generally requires lending institutions to disclose the cost of credit to consumer borrowers. But the Federal Reserve Board created an exemption for banks honoring checks when their depositor “inadvertently” overdrew their account.
Originally, overdrafts were infrequent, and overdraft fees were modest. In the 1990s and 2000s, with the rise of debit cards, large banks began raising fees and using the exemption to generate overdraft loans, creating quite the income stream.
The proposed rule would require large financial institutions to treat overdraft loans like credit cards, with all the related disclosure requirements. Alternatively, banks may charge a small fee in line with their costs. The CFPB suggests these fees may be as low as $3.
According to the press release, the agency took action in 2022 against three of the largest financial institutions to curb these fees. As a result, many banks began to voluntarily revise their overdraft policies. This proposed rule is a continuation of the agency’s efforts to control junk fees.
The CFPB is accepting comments on the proposed rule through April 1.
This blog has discussed the new Corporate Transparency Act three times recently. This is a reminder that the CTA goes into effect on January 1, 2024.
For reporting companies formed prior to the effective date, beneficial owner information will need to be reported to FinCEN prior to January 1, 2025.
For companies formed or registered after January 1 2024 and before January 1,2025, reporting is required within 90 days of the acceptance of the company’s formation or registration filing. FOR NEW COMPANIES, YOU HAVE ONLY 90 DAYS TO REPORT!
If you missed the discussion of the Small Entity Compliance Guide FinCEN issued in September, here is the link.
On September 28, FinCEN issued a Notice to extend the deadline for filing beneficial ownership information reports. You can read the notice here.
Please refer to the excellent September 2023 article in SC Lawyer entitled, “The Basic Ins and Outs of the Corporate Transparency Act” by Matthew B. Edwards and D. Parker Baker III.
This article provides an analysis of the basics of the Act, which is intended to help prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, tax fraud and other illicit activities. Many entities will be required to report information concerning beneficial owners to the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), identifying their beneficial owners and providing certain information about them.
The act may apply to virtually every commercial real estate transaction because of the use of multi-tier entity structures to achieve business objectives. Lawyers will need to review clients’ organizational structure charts to determine entity by entity whether an exemption is applicable. If not, organizational documents, stockholder agreements, operating agreements will have to be reviewed to determine beneficial ownership.
Reporting information will include the name, address, state of jurisdiction and taxpayer identification number of every beneficial owner. Other information may be required, such as passports and driver’s licenses. Penalties for failure to comply will include civil penalties of no more than $500 per day, fines of no more than $10,000 and imprisonment for no more than two years. A safe harbor is included for voluntarily and promptly correcting an inaccurate report within 90 days.
Everyone will get through this together, and it’s likely that experts will emerge to help. This blog will keep you posted on new developments.
This update furthers my effort to keep South Carolina dirt lawyers up to speed on the real estate agent commission cases that are proceeding through courts across the country. HousingWire is reporting that a judge in the Western District of Missouri has preliminarily approved a settlement with two corporate broker firms, RE/MAX and Anywhere Real Estate.
According to the article dated November 21, RE/MAX will pay $55 million, and Anywhere Real Estate will pay $83.5 million.
Settlement agreement provisions include no longer requiring agents to be members of the National Association of Realtors and that the brokerage firms will require or encourage agents to make it clear that commissions are negotiable. Agents will also have the flexibility to set or negotiate commissions as they see fit.
The parties are required to contact the court to schedule a final approval hearing before December 22.
Last week’s blog spoke to Housingwire’s November 10 article that Sauntell Burten has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina alleging that the National Association of Realtors and Keller Williams colluded to artificially inflate agent commission rates.
The plaintiff is seeking class action status for all home sellers in South Carolina who have sold a home on the MLS with a Keller Williams agent since November of 2019. The 107-page complaint states that NAR’s “clear cooperation” policy leads to the commission problem because that policy requires agents to provide a blanket offer of compensation to the buyer’s agent to list a property on the MLS.
Real estate lawyers, let me know if you hear local updates on this situation.
This blog recently discussed the Missouri class action by residential real estate sellers against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a real estate agent trade association, and several real estate agent entities, which resulted in a judgment of $1.8 billion. The plaintiffs argued that commissions are rarely negotiable and that the seller is required to pay commissions for both sides of transactions
A South Carolina lawyer posted on a listserv I read on the subject that litigation like this wouldn’t happen in South Carolina because standard residential contracts leave a blank for the percentage of the buyer’s agent’s commission. This poster was, sadly, wrong.
Housingwire reported on November 10 that Shauntell Burton has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina alleging that the NAR and Keller Williams colluded to artificially inflate agent commission rates. You can read the story here.
The plaintiff is seeking class action status for all home sellers in South Carolina who have sold a home on the MLS with a Keller Williams agent since November of 2019. The 107-page complaint states that NAR’s “clear cooperation” policy leads to the commission problem because that policy requires agents to provide a blanket offer of compensation to the buyer’s agent to list a property on the MLS.
Apparently, similar suits are being brought in multiple states.
Dirt lawyers, what do you think about this? Is Keller Williams the only broker involved in the practice, or will other brokers be named in the future? Is it your experience that commissions paid by sellers to buyers’ agents are negotiated, as the poster mentioned above suggested? I’d love to hear your thoughts and learn from your experience.
Halloween brought a scary judgment in a Missouri class action by residential real estate sellers against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a real estate agent trade association, and several real estate agent entities. The judgment of $1.8 billion will surely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Appeals may take several years to be completed.
The sellers argued that commissions are rarely negotiable, and that the seller is required to pay commissions for both sides of transactions. I heard a seller interviewed by Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News on November 1. He said that he must pay commission to a real estate agent he never met, will never meet and who did no work for him.
The plaintiffs also argued that this commission structure keeps home prices artificially high.
At least two real estate agent entities settled for large sums prior to the judgment. And similar lawsuits are pending in other jurisdictions.
Dirt lawyers, how do you project this suit may ultimately affect our industry? I wonder if any type of injunction will be put into place pending appeal. I wonder whether the Department of Justice will see the necessity to become involved. I wonder whether commissions will ultimately become negotiable and whether buyers will be required to pay their agents up front or at closing. If that happens, I can imagine extensive negotiations with sellers to pay more of their buyer’s closing costs than customary. I even wonder whether buyer agents may become obsolete.
Let's Talk Dirt 