Recent Blog Posts
We're kicking off 2025 with our first Farm Office Live webinar on Friday, January 10 at 10:00 a.m. Join us to hear from the Farm Office team of farm management and agricultural law experts for quick updates on these topics:
- Ohio Legislative Round-Up
- Farm Bill and American Relief Act of 2025
- Farm Business Analysis Program Update
- Long Term Care Update
- Quarterly Fertilizer Update
- Crop Input Outlook
- Livestock Outlook
- 1099 Reminders
- Winter Programs
To register for the free Farm Office Live webinars, visit go.osu.edu/farmofficelive. Register once and you'll receive notices of all webinars. Recordings of our webinars are available on the same page and on the Farm Office YouTube channel.

The Corporate Transparency Act ("CTA") has reached the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”). On New Year’s Eve, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted an application to SCOTUS, seeking either a stay of the nationwide injunction or, at a minimum, a limitation of the injunction's scope to the plaintiffs specifically named in the Texas Top Cop Shop case.
How Did We Get Here?
Although there have been multiple lawsuits filed to stop the implementation of the CTA, the nationwide injunction at issue stems from the Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland case arising out of the Eastern District of Texas. Below is a timeline of events:
- May 5, 2024 – Six plaintiffs, including Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., filed a federal complaint alleging that the CTA’s reporting rule is unconstitutional and asked the court to invalidate the CTA and its reporting requirements.
- June 3, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to halt the implementation of the CTA’s reporting requirements and deadlines.
- December 3, 2024 – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the CTA, concluding that the CTA “appears likely unconstitutional.” The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the CTA but instead focused on whether the Plaintiffs satisfied the proof necessary for being awarded an injunction. See our post regarding the court’s decision to issue an injunction.
- December 9, 2024 – The Government appealed the issuance of the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- December 13, 2024 – The Government filed a motion to stay the injunction issued by the lower court. A stay of an injunction essentially “lifts” or cancels out the injunction.
- December 23, 2024 – A motions panel for the Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s motion and issued a stay on the injunction against the CTA, essentially reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. See our post on the motion panel’s decision.
- December 26, 2024 – A merits panel for the Fifth Circuit reversed course and vacated the stay issued by the motions panel, effectively reinstating the injunction against the CTA. See our post on the merit panel’s decision.
- December 31, 2024 – The Government submitted its application to SCOTUS to review the nationwide injunction.
What Happens Next?
SCOTUS may choose to disregard the application and decline to address the challenges to the CTA, leaving the injunction intact. Alternatively, SCOTUS could opt to overturn or narrow the injunction, reinstating the CTA's reporting requirements for numerous businesses across the country. As a result, reporting companies should be prepared to promptly submit the required beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reports.
Filing BOI Reports
Although there is no current mandate for reporting companies to file BOI reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), voluntary submissions are still being accepted. There is no charge to file a BOI report with FinCEN. Reporting companies can simply visit https://boiefiling.fincen.gov to begin the process of filing their BOI report.
Reporting companies will need the following information: (1) the reporting company’s legal name, (2) tax identification number, (3) jurisdiction of formation, and (4) current U.S. address. For their beneficial owners, reporting companies will need the following information: (1) full legal name, (2) residential address, (3) a form of identification, which must be either a state issued driver’s license, a state/local/tribe-issued ID, a U.S. passport, or a foreign passport, and (4) an image of the identification used in number (3). Note: companies formed after January 1, 2024, will also need their company applicant information. See our law bulletin for more details on reporting requirements.
As previously noted, filing a BOI report is free of charge, and a straightforward LLC with only a few beneficial owners can typically complete and submit the report with ease. However, a reporting company may opt to engage a professional, such as an attorney, accountant, or other third-party, to assist with the process for a fee.
Conclusion
While there have been no significant updates to the CTA, it is essential to stay informed about potential changes on the horizon. The Government's application to SCOTUS could lead to a shift in direction in the near future. As always, we will keep you updated on the latest developments.
Tags: CTA, BOI, beneficial ownership information, corporate transparency act, beneficial owners, SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, Fifth Circuit, injunction
Comments: 0

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has given us another holiday surprise! The nationwide injunction on the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting requirements is once again in effect.
On December 23, 2024, we reported that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had lifted a nationwide injunction on the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements. Consequently, all reporting obligations were reinstated for businesses nationwide. Following the Fifth Circuit’s decision to stay the injunction, the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) extended the filing deadline for most reporting companies to January 13, 2025. We knew at the time that this would not be the last we would hear of the CTA and BOI reporting requirements, but what we did not know was how quickly another update would occur.
On December 26th, just days after lifting the nationwide injunction, the Fifth Circuit issued another order vacating its stay, effectively reinstating the nationwide injunction and halting the BOI reporting requirements under the CTA once more. The court ruled that the order from the motions-panel granting the stay on the injunction be vacated “in order to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties’ weighty substantive arguments. . .”
How did the Fifth Circuit manage to both lift and later reinstate the nationwide injunction? The explanation lies in the distinct panels of judges that handle motions and appeals. One panel, the "motions-panel," reviewed the Government's "emergency motion for a stay pending appeal," while a different panel, the "merits panel," is evaluating the case based on its merits. These two panels reached differing conclusions regarding the federal district court's issuance of the preliminary injunction. The following timeline summarizes the events that have brought us to the current situation:
- On December 3rd, a federal district court found the CTA likely to be unconstitutional and imposed a nationwide preliminary injunction on the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements.
- The Government appealed the decision, and a motions-panel of the Fifth Circuit considered the Government's "emergency motion for a stay [of the preliminary injunction] pending appeal." On December 23rd, the panel sided with the Government, lifting the injunction based on the likelihood that the Government would succeed in proving the CTA's constitutionality. The panel did not address the merits of the case but solely ruled on whether the district court's injunction should remain in place.
- The appeal is now before the merits panel of the Fifth Circuit which gave us our latest update and vacated the motions-panel’s order granting the Government’s motion to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction. Thus, the merits panel reinstated the December 3rd injunction.
What now?
The case is currently before the merits panel of Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and has been expedited to the next available oral argument panel. We may receive another update on the status of BOI reporting and the CTA in just a few short days. While the Fifth Circuit continues to review the case, there are other federal courts considering challenges to the CTA. This case, and potentially other CTA cases, can still be brought before the Supreme Court of the United States for a final determination.
However, as it stands, all BOI reporting requirements of the CTA have been suspended. While there is currently no obligation to meet the extended BOI reporting deadline, business owners can still voluntarily file their BOI reports with FinCEN. We will do our best to keep you up to date on any developments on BOI reporting and the CTA.
Tags: BOI, CTA, beneficial ownership information, corporate transparency act, injunction, stay, vacate
Comments: 0

In a recent blog post, we discussed a federal district court’s issuance of a nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), temporarily halting the requirement for businesses to file “beneficial ownership information” (“BOI”) reports with the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). In that post, we promised to keep you updated on the legal status of the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements. Well, we are here to tell you that the saga continues . . .
As of December 23, 2024, that nationwide injunction is no longer enforceable, and the BOI reporting requirements of the CTA have been reinstated. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a temporary stay on the nationwide injunction. The Fifth Circuit found that the government made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed in proving that the CTA is constitutional. The court explained that Congress exercised its broad authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the CTA, aiming to regulate the anonymous ownership and operation of businesses that constitute an "economic class of activities" significantly affecting interstate commerce. Consequently, the court determined that the reporting requirement for such businesses is within the scope of the Commerce Clause.
The court further concluded that “a last-minute injunction of a statute proposed and passed by the people’s representatives inevitably causes irreparable harm.” Additionally, the court determined that the burden on businesses required to report is minimal. When weighed against the “public’s urgent interest in combatting financial crime and safeguarding national security,” the court found that a stay of the injunction was justified.
Following the Fifth Circuit's ruling, the Department of the Treasury issued an alert on the FinCEN website acknowledging that reporting companies may require additional time to comply with the CTA due to the period when the preliminary injunction was in place. As a result, the reporting deadlines have been extended as follows:
- Reporting companies established or registered before January 1, 2024, now have until January 13, 2025, to submit their initial BOI reports to FinCEN. (Previously, these companies were required to report by January 1, 2025).
- Reporting companies formed or registered in the United States on or after September 4, 2024, and before December 3, 2024, have until January 13, 2025, to submit their initial BOI reports to FinCEN.
- Reporting companies formed or registered in the United States between December 3, 2024, and December 23, 2024, have an additional 21 days beyond their original filing deadline to submit their initial BOI reports to FinCEN.
- All reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after January 1, 2025, have 30 days to file their initial BOI reports with FinCEN.
So, what does it all mean?
If your farm business is registered in Ohio, compliance with the CTA's reporting requirements is once again mandatory. While farm businesses now have a slight extension to meet the BOI reporting requirements, it is probably best practice not to delay too long.
This situation is unfolding quickly. This case may still undergo further review by the Fifth Circuit or potentially reach the Supreme Court of the United States. Additionally, several other federal courts are currently evaluating challenges to the CTA. We will make every effort to keep you informed promptly as the situation develops.
If you and your family are grappling with the critical issue of how to transition the farm operation and farm assets to the next generation, OSU Extension is here to help. Attend one of our “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshops this winter to learn about the communication and legal strategies that provide solutions for dealing with farm transition needs and decision making. We’ve scheduled both a webinar version and several in-person options for the workshop.
This workshop challenges farm families to actively plan for the future of the farm business. Learn how to have crucial conversations about the future of your farm and gain a better understanding of the strategies and tools that can help you transfer your farm’s ownership, management, and assets to the next generation. We encourage parents, children, and grandchildren to attend together to develop a plan for the future of the family and farm.
Teaching faculty for the workshop are David Marrison, OSU Extension Farm Management Field Specialist, and Robert Moore, Attorney with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program. Topics which will be covered in the workshop include:
- Developing goals for estate and transition planning
- Planning for the transition of control
- Planning for the unexpected
- Communication and conflict management during farm transfer
- Federal estate tax challenges
- Tools for transferring assets
- Tools for avoiding probate
- The role of wills and trusts
- Using LLCs
- Strategies for on-farm and off-farm heirs
- Strategies for protecting the farmland
- Developing your team
- Getting your affairs in order
- Selecting an attorney
Webinar version. You and your family members can attend the workshop individually from the comfort of your homes. The four-part webinar series will be February 3, 10, 17, and 24, 2025 from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. via Zoom. Pre-registration is required so that a packet of program materials can be mailed in advance to participating families. Electronic copies of the course materials will also be available to all participants. The registration fee is $99 per farm family. Register by January 22, 2025 in order to receive course materials in time. Click here to register or go.osu.edu/successionregistration
In-person workshops. Our local Extension Educators are hosting in-person workshops at five regional locations across Ohio during the upcoming winter. Registration costs vary by. The in-person workshops will be held on
- January 23, 2025- Putnam County (9:00 to 4:00 p.m.)
- February 6, 2025- Pickaway County (10:00 to 4:00 p.m.)
- February 18, 2025- Clark County (9:00 to 4:00 p.m.)
- March 11 & 13, 2025- Wayne County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 13 & 18, 2025 – Licking County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
Registration is required. Find registration information for all workshops at go.osu.edu/farmsuccession
Thank you! OSU Extension would like to thank Ohio Corn and Wheat for their generous sponsorship of these programs.
We hope you’ll join us to move forward on planning for the future of your farm!
For questions about the workshop, please contact David Marrison at marrison.2@osu.edu or 740-722-6073.
Note: The following article was written by Sarah Hoak, an undergraduate student in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences at Ohio State. Sarah was a student in the Agribusiness Law Class at OSU this past semester. Sarah researched and wrote this article to expand her knowledge and understanding of pesticide use policy, a topic of great interest to her.
On August 20, 2024, the EPA announced its final Herbicide Strategy. Many in the agriculture community are wondering what the strategy is, how it came to be and what it means for the industry.
The herbicide strategy is one part of the EPA’s workplan to protect endangered species. It was created in response to multiple lawsuits filed against the EPA for failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not conducting mandatory consultations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA is the primary federal law that regulates pesticide use in the U.S. and prevents the sale or use of a pesticide in the United States until the EPA approves and registers a label for the product. After a pesticide label is approved, the EPA must review the label every fifteen years to ensure that it continues to meet federal requirements with regards to the environment and human health. However, the EPA has struggled to complete ESA consultations when registering pesticides or reviewing their labels. Just one ESA consultation can take years to complete, and time adds up when there are over 17,000 registered pesticide products on the market.
To better comply with the ESA and reduce the risk of more litigation, the EPA drafted the Herbicide Strategy. This policy was designed to start the protection of endangered species earlier in the regulatory process. Instead of acting after the fact, the strategy aims to mitigate herbicide exposure to endangered species at the start. The strategy lays out a set of mitigation guidelines that growers and applicators will need to follow as they apply an herbicide. These mitigation practices will help limit herbicide exposure to endangered species. A draft policy of the strategy was released in 2023 and underwent the public comment process. Because the EPA is a government agency, they have the power to make and enforce regulations. The public can share their input on drafted regulations during the “comment period,” which is a 30–60-day time frame where government agencies will hear comments from the public1.
The comments that were submitted for the draft herbicide strategy expressed concern about the restrictiveness and complexity of the policy. The EPA took these comments into account and made changes so that the final policy is easier to understand, includes more flexibility for pesticide users and reduces the amount of additional mitigation needed.
The final policy, taking into account public comments, focuses on targeting pesticide exposure from off-target movement including spray drift, erosion and runoff. The EPA will use a three-step decision framework to implement the policy. The first step compares and identifies a herbicide's potential to have population-level impacts on endangered species as either not likely, low, medium, or high. This step sets the bar for how much mitigation is needed for use of each herbicide.
The second step will determine the level of mitigation needed to sufficiently reduce spray drift, runoff and erosion exposure to listed species. For spray drift exposure, mitigation will primarily be based on buffer distances, and the distance will be determined by a herbicide’s classification (from step one) and the method of application. Applicators have the option to reduce the required buffer size by adopting additional mitigation measures aimed at reducing spray drift.
For runoff and erosion exposure, a point system will be used with growers/applicators having a mitigation menu from which to select practices that aim to reduce off-target movement. Herbicides will require a certain amount of mitigation points based on their classification from step one. Mitigation measures receive a value of either one, two or three points - three being high efficacy and one being low efficacy. Like with spray drift, applicators/growers have the option to gain the required number of points by adopting additional mitigation measures.
Step three will determine where the mitigations identified in step two will be required. This step considers each field's characteristics. Some mitigations may apply across the entire area of herbicide use or may be geographically specific and only apply in certain locations. This step complicates the strategy and its implementation because each field may require different forms of mitigation depending on its characteristics.
Let's look at an example for runoff and erosion mitigation on a field in Franklin County, Ohio with a 2% slope:
Using the EPA’s mitigation menu, we can determine how much mitigation is needed. Using the mitigation relief options in Table 1 of the mitigation menu, the field has a starting point value of 5 points. The field gets 3 points because Franklin County has a low pesticide runoff vulnerability and 2 points because it has a slope of less than 3%. If a grower were to apply a herbicide with a low impact, no additional mitigation measures would need to be taken. Low population impact herbicides require 3 mitigation points, and the base field characteristics cover this already.
However, if a grower were to apply a high impact herbicide, then 9 mitigation points (4 in addition to the field’s starting value) would need to be met. The grower can choose from various mitigation options to reach the 9-point mark. Some of these options include no-till conservation tillage (3 points), contour farming (2 points), in field vegetative strips (2 points), cover crops with tillage (1 point), grassed waterways (2 points), mitigation tracking (1 point) or participating in a qualifying conservation program (2 points). There are even more mitigation measures to choose from that are listed in the mitigation menu. As long as the grower selects and implements enough mitigation measures to reach the 9-point mark, then they will be in compliance with the strategy.
The Herbicide Strategy is a complex and layered policy that will affect growers and pesticide applicators across the United States. Compliance with the ESA has been a struggle for the EPA, but through the Herbicide Strategy, mitigation of spray drift and runoff/erosion exposure to endangered species should be reduced. Remember, geography, proximity to endangered species, method of application, pesticide applied, and farm management will dictate how much of an effect this policy has on a specific operation. Not every grower and applicator will be in the same situation, each will have to adjust and change certain aspects of how they manage their farm or specific fields.
Unfortunately, how this policy will play out and be implemented is unclear. The agriculture community will have to be vigilant and adapt to the Herbicide Strategy as more information arises and implementation begins.
1Comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov. Once on the website, search the desired EPA docket number, click “comment now” and then follow the online instructions to submit comments.
Business entities like LLCs are often promoted by attorneys for their ability to provide liability protection. These structures are designed to shield the owners of a business from personal liability for the activities of the business. This protection helps safeguard existing businesses and encourages entrepreneurship by reducing the risk to owners' personal assets. However, this liability protection is not automatic.
The concept of liability protection hinges on the principle that the law treats the business entity as a separate legal person. Owners of LLCs and corporations are generally not liable for the actions of the entity. To maintain this protection, the business must be operated distinctly from its owner(s). Failing to do so can result in “piercing the corporate veil,” exposing the owners to personal liability.
What is Piercing the Corporate Veil?
Piercing the corporate veil occurs when a court disregards the separation between the business and its owners, holding the owners personally liable for the business’s obligations. This typically happens when the owners fail to treat the business as a separate entity.
One of the most common reasons for piercing the veil is the misuse of business funds. For instance, if an owner consistently uses the business account for personal expenses like meals or groceries, it indicates that the business is not truly independent. A legitimate business entity would not pay for personal expenses unrelated to its operations.
Example Case
Sam is a home builder who sells high-end homes. To run his business, Sam establishes an LLC. One of his buyers, dissatisfied with the quality of a home, sues the LLC for breach of warranty. The buyer also wants to hold Sam personally liable, knowing that he has substantial personal assets.
Initially, Sam would be protected from personal liability because of the LLC’s structure. However, during litigation, it is revealed that Sam used the LLC’s funds to pay for personal expenses such as lunches and other non-business items. The buyer argues that Sam did not treat the LLC as a separate entity, and the court agrees. As a result, the corporate veil is pierced, and Sam is held personally liable for the buyer’s damages.
This example illustrates how failing to maintain proper business practices can lead to personal liability. Had Sam documented a draw of funds from the LLC, deposited it into his personal account, and then used it for personal expenses, the liability shield might have remained intact.
Common Reasons for Piercing the Corporate Veil
Several factors can lead to the piercing of an LLC’s liability veil, including:
- Commingling Funds: Using LLC funds to pay personal expenses or depositing personal income into the LLC’s accounts.
- Lack of Separate Accounts: Failing to maintain a dedicated bank account for the LLC.
- Undercapitalization: Establishing the LLC with insufficient funds to cover foreseeable liabilities or operating expenses.
- Noncompliance with Formalities: Ignoring the operating agreement or failing to adhere to state regulations.
- Fraud or Misrepresentation: Misrepresenting the LLC’s financial condition or ability to meet obligations.
- Informal Agreements: Making undocumented agreements or promises outside the scope of the LLC’s governance.
- Alter Ego Operations: Treating the LLC as an extension of personal activities rather than a separate business entity.
- Poor Record-Keeping: Failing to document contributions, distributions, or significant business decisions.
Best Practices to Avoid Piercing the Corporate Veil
To protect the liability shield of an LLC, follow these best practices:
- Maintain Financial Separation: Open a separate bank account for the LLC and ensure all business transactions go through it. Avoid commingling personal and business funds.
- Ensure Adequate Capitalization: Fund the LLC sufficiently at its inception and provide ongoing capital to meet its operational needs.
- Follow Formalities: Comply with the LLC’s operating agreement and state laws.
- Document All Transactions: Keep detailed records of contracts, invoices, and other business dealings. Record all major decisions, even if formal meetings are not required.
- Avoid Fraud and Misconduct: Operate the LLC ethically and transparently to maintain credibility.
- Use Funds Appropriately: Ensure LLC funds are used exclusively for legitimate business expenses. Document any distributions or payments made to owners.
- Conduct Regular Reviews: Periodically review business practices to ensure compliance with legal and operational standards.
Consult an Attorney
When in doubt, consult an experienced attorney. They can provide guidance on sound business practices and help ensure your LLC maintains its liability protections. By taking proactive steps, you can protect both your business and your personal assets from unnecessary risk.

If you are one of those farm businesses putting off the requirement to file “beneficial ownership information” (BOI) to the federal government under the new Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), you just received an early Christmas present from a federal court in Texas. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the CTA, concluding that the law “appears likely unconstitutional.” The court halted enforcement of the CTA and its regulations (the Reporting Rule) and stayed the January 1, 2025 deadline for BOI reporting.
What is the CTA?
The CTA is a new federal law that requires certain businesses to report the identities of those with “beneficial ownership interests” in the business to the federal Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The CTA’s first reporting deadline was set to be January 1, 2025.
The parties who brought the lawsuit
Six Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the United States -- a private individual, three businesses, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, and the National Federation of Independent Business. The parties claimed that the CTA and its regulations are unconstitutional on several grounds: first, for violating State’s rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; second, for violating the First Amendment by compelling speech and burdening rights of association, and third, for violating the Fourth Amendment by forcing disclosure of private information.
The court’s analysis
Stating that whether the CTA and its rules are absolutely unconstitutional “is a question for another day,” the court instead focused its opinion on its duty to determine whether the Plaintiffs satisfied the proof necessary for being awarded the “extraordinary relief” of an injunction. Doing so required the court to examine the elements a plaintiff must prove to receive an injunction. The court’s opinion consumes 79-pages, but here’s a snapshot of the court’s analysis of the required elements:
- That the CTA and Reporting Rule substantially threaten the plaintiffs with irreparable harm. The Plaintiffs presented two arguments that they would suffer irreparable harm by complying with the CTA reporting requirements. First, Plaintiffs claimed they would have to expend resources, spend time and effort, and incur compliance costs and legal expenses. Second, they argued that their constitutional rights would also be irreparably harmed because the fear of noncompliance and criminal punishment would force them to reveal protected information. The court agreed that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in both the form of compliance costs and substantial threats to their constitutional rights. In doing so, the court rejected the federal government’s argument that reporting costs would be minimal and “not a heavy lift.
- A substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any of their challenges. The lengthiest part of the court’s decision is its analysis of whether the Plaintiffs are likely to be successful in their argument that the CTA is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs raised several constitutional challenges, but the court addressed only the Tenth Amendment claim that Congress exceeded its authority by passing the CTA. The government first argued that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause authorized the CTA, but the court determine that the CTA appears to be a “substantial expansion of commerce power” because it neither regulates economic activity nor non-economic activity among the states, but instead “regulates reporting companies simply because they are registered entities and compels disclosure of information for a law enforcement purpose.” Likewise, the court rejected the government’s second argument, that the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper clause authorized it to enact the CTA as a necessary and proper extension of its power to regulate commerce and foreign affairs and to lay and collect taxes. The court found “no constitutional solace” in any of the government’s arguments, however. The Plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of of proving their claim that the CTA exceeds Congress’ authority and violates the Tenth Amendment, the court concluded.
- That the threatened harm outweighs any damage the injunction might have on the Government and that preliminary injunctive relief will not harm the public. A final question the court deliberated is the “balancing of the equities,” or whether the threatened injury to Plaintiffs by not granting the injunction outweighs any potential harm to the government from issuing the injunction. The court quickly concluded that because the Plaintiffs’ injuries are concrete and because it is in the best interest of the public to prevent a violation of a party’s constitutional right by allowing enforcement of the CTA, the balance of equities favors issuing an injunction.
The extent of the injunction
The court’s final deliberation was whether the injunction should apply nationwide or only to the Plaintiffs, and whether it should also prevent enforcement of the CTA’s Reporting Rule and put the January 1, 2025 compliance deadline on hold. Given that the CTA applies nationwide to nearly 33 million businesses, the court held that the extent of the potential constitutional violations Plaintiffs alleged would be best served through a nationwide injunction of the CTA and its Reporting Rule. Combined with a stay of the compliance date, the nationwide injunction will maintain the status quo and protect the parties from irreparable harm pending further review of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
What does the case mean for farm businesses?
Businesses who haven’t yet filed their BOI information with the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are not currently required to do so, and the Department of Treasury cannot enforce the law or issue penalties against businesses who do not report. Note that the court case did not address or include any remedies for businesses that have already filed BOI information. But the lawsuit is not over and there will be further legal proceedings on both the constitutional challenges and the issuance of the injunction (UPDATE: The federal government filed an appeal of the court's decision on December 5, 2024). For now, businesses might want to consult with their legal counsel and be prepared to file if the injunction is lifted. If that occurs, there is likely to be advance notice or an extension of time granted for filers to come into compliance.
Expect to hear more from us in the future on the legal status of the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements.
Tags: corporate transparency act, beneficial ownership information, BOI, FinCEN, CTA
Comments: 0
Are you a farmer or farmland owner wanting to learn more about recent tax law changes and proposals? If so, join OSU Extension Educators Barry Ward, Jeff Lewis, Robert Moore and David Marrison on Friday, December 6 at 10 a.m. for a special edition of our Farm Office Live webinar presented by OSU's Income Tax School. The team will discuss tax issues that may affect farmers and farmland owners for the 2024 tax season and beyond.
Topics include:
- Farm Economy and Tax Planning
- Tax Planning in Low Income/Drought Years
- Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting
- Pending Sunset of Larger Estate Tax Exclusion Amount (Unified Credit)
- Residual Fertility/Fertilizer Deduction
- Clean Fuel Production Credit (I.R.C. § 45Z)
- Current Ag Use Valuation (CAUV) Changes in 2024
- IRC § 45Q - Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration
- Farm Loan Immediate Relief Under Inflation Reduction Act: Income Tax Options Triggered by Corrected 1099s
- Taxability of USDA Discrimination Financial Assistance Awards
- Pending Expiration (Sunsetting) of other Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) Provisions
This two-hour program will be presented in a live webinar format via Zoom. Individuals who operate farms, own property, or are involved with renting farmland are encouraged to participate. Registration is necessary and if you're a regular Farm Office Live attendee, you're already registered for the webinar. For others, register at https://go.osu.edu/farmofficelive.
Tags: tax, Ag Tax, Farm Tax, Income Tax, cauv, IRC
Comments: 0

Our Agricultural & Resource Law Program team is excited to be part of the new Northeast Ohio Ag Innovation Center (NEO-AIC), a center that targets farm-based value-added businesses in Northeast Ohio. Based at OSU's campus in Wooster, Ohio, the center offers individual assessment and assistance to farmers in the Northeast region of the state who want to add or expand their production of value-added food, fiber, or fuel products. Ohio State's center is the newest of the USDA-funded Ag Innovation Centers, which includes seven other centers in Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri and Indiana.
The center will focus on "value-added agriculture," which refers to enhancing an agricultural product by altering its physical state, production method, or marketing approach, ultimately broadening the customer base for the product. Examples include:
-
Making a physical change, like milling wheat into flour or making strawberries into jam, that transforms the original product into something new.
-
Changing your production method, which includes growing organically, shifts how the product is produced and makes it more appealing to a specific market.
-
Adding marketing labels like “locally grown” or “Ohio Proud” which enhance their appeal by emphasizing local origins and can attract new customers. *
The NEO-AIC team will work with clients to assess and assist with their specific needs for developing or expanding value-added production. The team will also coordinate connections with processors, markets, and distribution outlets throughout the region and identify new products and opportunities for farms. As the legal member of the team, I'll provide resources to help clients understand the laws and regulations that apply to their value-added production and their businesses. Specific services the team will provide include:
- Technical assistance: Help with legal and food safety questions and making connections to local service providers.
- Value chain coordination: Help finding markets and distribution outlets for value-added products and strategic identification of new customer demands that can be filled by local farms.
- Business development support: Help with developing the plans necessary to start or expand a business, including legal and regulatory requirements, financing options, and connections to resources.
Thanks to the hard work and foresight of Dr. Shoshanah Inwood, OSU secured financial support for the new center from USDA Rural Development. With additional assistance from Ohio State University Extension and The Ohio State University College of Food Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, NEO-AIC is able to offer its services free of charge to Northeast Ohio farms.
Visit this link to learn more about the NEO-AIC.
Tags: value-added, food processing, Northeast Ohio Agricultural Innovation Center, NEO-AIC
Comments: 0