Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

sponsored by
Business
Jun. 19, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Nevada officials see millions of lost dollars with proposed disclosure bill

Federal bill would force disclosure of owners of private corporations

By JOHN G. EDWARDS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

A Senate Committee heard testimony Thursday on a federal bill that would require private corporations to disclose their owners, a requirement Nevada officials fear could cost the state millions of dollars in lost revenues.

The bill would direct states to collect the names and addresses of owners of private corporations and limited liability companies to help law enforcement agencies investigate money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and terrorism financing.

Most Popular Stories
  • Fraud with Portent
  • Expect to pay at Nugget's new tower
  • Debt-ridden casino operators told to expect pressure
  • REAL ESTATE: Las Vegas home prices stabilize as threat of foreclosure flood wanes
  • REAL ESTATE: Short sales on the rise
  • GAMING COMPANY EARNINGS: Station drops $455.4 million
  • THE STRIP: License approved for Aria
  • GLOBAL GAMING EXPO: Recession over? Don't bet on it
  • Foreclosure wave continues
  • Union wants insiders to help pull Station from bankruptcy




    • However, the bill would diminish the attraction Nevada has for businesses wishing to keep their corporate ownership secret, said Deputy Secretary of State Robert Walsh.

    The secretary of state's commercial recordings division is expected to collect $74 million from fees paid by companies registering in Nevada as private corporations or limited liability companies, but it might collect far less from out-of-state entities if the rules for incorporation were the same in every state, he said.

    "If it makes every state knuckle under to the same set of rules, what's the attraction for Nevada versus the state of Indiana?" Walsh asked.

    In addition, the bill could force Nevada to spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars more to handle recordings for corporate and limited liability companies, Walsh said.

    Supporters of the bill, however, say the additional costs would be minimal.

    While the bill would give law enforcement officers access to corporate ownership records, it would allow states to determine whether the public would have access to the information.

    The National Association of Secretaries of State favored an alternative approach that would require corporations to keep the identity of corporate officials for criminal investigators, but not the names of "beneficial owners," as defined by federal law. Criminal investigators could obtain information about corporate officials by going to registered agents for the corporations.

    North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall said she opposes the bill because it would require states to keep additional records and would increase state record-keeping costs. She testified for the secretary of states association.

    However, representatives of the Justice Department, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and New York district attorney's office backed the bill at the committee hearing Thursday.

    Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller opposed the bill in a letter to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

    Officials recalled how the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 2006 grilled a deputy secretary of state from Nevada on provisions that allowed corporate owners to hide their identities when they incorporated.

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., pointed to testimony that Nevada First Holdings, a corporate registered agent's firm in Las Vegas, allowed thousands of companies to use strawmen as officers and directors on Nevada corporation filings "to enable the true company owners to 'retain a higher level of anonymity.' "

    In his letter, Miller outlined steps Nevada took to address issues raised in the 2006 hearing.

    The Legislature in 2007 prohibited the use of bearer shares, which belong to whomever holds them. Nevada lawmakers gave the secretary of state authority to investigate fraudulent corporate filings and gave the secretary of state's office authority to demand the information from companies in criminal investigations. If the corporation fails to comply within three days, their right to do business can be forfeited, Miller said.

    Representatives of ICE and the Justice Department objected to that approach, because it would tip off the target of the investigation and could lead to records destruction.

    The Justice Department advocates bill amendments to require photos of corporate owners, regardless of whether they are foreign or U.S. citizens. In addition, the Justice Department wants corporate owners to be required to file updates when a business' ownership changes.

    Publicly held corporations, which have shares trading on stock exchanges, would be exempt from ownership disclosure requirements under the bill.

    Contact reporter John G. Edwards at jedwards@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0420.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 11 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Nevada Jack wrote on June 19, 2009 10:54 PM: ABOUT TIME! Look at all the LLC's in Nevada. NO ONE can figure out who owns what ... and the seedy fly by night scam artists have a hay day. The shady developers who are looking to pull fast ones on the public reign supreme ... ABOUT TIME! WHO CARES ABOUT THE EVIL FAT CATS hiding their ill gotten gains ... and who cares about the state losing money. If its the law of the land nation wide ... explain how thats going to hurt Nevada. Its going to make things safer for the general public so who cares about the flim flam outfits!


    Furious wrote on June 19, 2009 10:50 PM: Personal lives of business people my ass. This state is complicit in money laundering and the Feds have every right to stop it. These dummy corporations are just fronts for drug dealers, murderers, blackmailers and every other form of scum. Law abiding business people shouldn't be afraid to have their name on a corporate document.


    Harry Bollox wrote on June 19, 2009 10:07 PM: No one cares who owns the monorail. As long as its costs aren't foisted onto the taxpayers, let the rotten thing fester until they have to tear it down. They supposedly have funds put away to do just that. But then, it could end up like the Millenium Scholarship. Guinn promised to NEVER use taxpayer money to bail it out but his last action before Nevadans got rid of him was to sign a bill doing just that.


    RonNV wrote on June 19, 2009 07:51 PM: The proposed bill is just wrong and it figures that the Obama administration is pushing it so hard. Obama wants to intrude into the personal lives of business people. The days of Big Brother are here.


    Bat Guano wrote on June 19, 2009 05:12 PM: Transparency in this country. lol


    MysterMr wrote on June 19, 2009 02:00 PM: The Nevada Secretary of State has already lost that "$74 million in fees" from this last tax hike. I don't see what they're worried about.

    Ironically, the Secretary of State office might show a modest increase in revenue because they are collecting the business license fee starting soon, but with this tax bill they've already lost 70% of their filings - and they are also losing all of the companies that brought all of that revenue in anyway, the so-called "resident agents"

    Definitely, Wyoming is the way to go.


    HELEN WEILS wrote on June 19, 2009 09:25 AM: NEVADA HAS ALREADY GOTTEN RID OF THE PROVISION ALREADY. THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE WOULD INCORPORATE HERE INSTEAD OF ANOTHER STATE IS LOWER FEES.
    NEVADA HAS ALREADY BEEN BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER ON THAT TOO.
    WYOMING ONLY CHARGES $50 A YEAR FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE AND NO COUNTY OR CITY BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. NEVADA STICKS IT TO YOU EVERY WHICH WAY. NEVADA HAS ALREADY LOST IT.
    INCORPORATE IN WYOMING.


    can we get someof the money back ? wrote on June 19, 2009 08:11 AM: http://www.lvrj.com/news/10284922.html


    so we finally get to know, who owns the costly mono rail wrote on June 19, 2009 08:10 AM:
    $





































    $


    Frank M wrote on June 19, 2009 06:44 AM: No, tlomen, it just gives the IRS more muscle.


    Read All Comments