Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What is the estimated cost for the regulatory compliance? Considered that the burden will fall on small business, have you considered the impact on global competitiveness? Is that impact worth the benefits of this legislation?

If you are wrong and later discover unexpected side-effects, what is the mechanism and cost of fixing or removing this regulation?




This sounds a lot like the "people with significant control" rules in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-...

I am a director of a small and mostly inactive company. We had to fill in a form when these rules came in. We have to fill in a form when we change directors or shareholders, which happens every few years. We have to fill in an annual confirmation that the information is up to date. All of this takes a matter of minutes. The cost is negligible.


> The cost is negligible.

It is not. It adds stress. When this was added (where I operate), I had to call in an accountant to do the paperwork because the penalty is prison time, and not a fine. This additional stress and paperwork just keeps compounding (there is a new paperwork every one or two years now). Then you have the small fee for that particular paperwork (should have been free?) and the accountant fee. It just keeps adding up, and for a single or very small business it's becoming unsustainable.


“the penalty is prison time“

Penalty for what? There is usually a pretty large distinction between misfiling as part of a crime, and misfiling as mere clerical error.

I don’t know where you operate.

Perhaps it’s so corrupt that officials will use any excuse to jail people who don’t pay them, but if this is the kind of locale in which you operate, a regulation like this would seem to be the least of your worries.


You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains.

If doing something could allow the prosecutor to plausibly charge you with this, even if you wouldn't be convicted, you now have to be counseled in doing it to avoid that possibility, otherwise you could be coerced into pleading guilty to something you didn't do because the alternative is prohibitively expensive legal defense from a questionable charge with a low risk of a high penalty.

Businesses are risk averse with things like this, so now, because of the possible implications, they'll hire a lawyer/accountant to deal with it, increasing compliance costs on many innocent people.


Not really. I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you.

My point is that if this is all they have then they don’t have a case, so legitimate businesses don’t need to stress about about clerical errors landing them in jail.


> I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you.

There is no if. Everybody is committing a crime all the time. There are laws that prohibit doing things that other laws mandate. There are more pages of laws on the books than anyone could read in a lifetime, so there is no feasible way to know that a given action isn't illegal.

Businesses are engaged in risk management. They try to avoid knowingly breaking the law. Making that process consume more resources, increases compliance costs.


If what you say is true, this law makes no difference, so why bother critiquing it?


The law likely will make little difference for its intended effect, but will create compliance costs.

It will also needlessly lead to the disclosure of personal information from people doing nothing wrong, simply because using tax disregarded LLCs has become a widespread practice to patch around just about everything else constantly demanding your personal info and leaking it everywhere.

By demanding the submission of this information, having harsh penalties for avoiding it, and providing apparently zero protection or consequences for disclosing it... that outcome is essentially guaranteed.


“become a widespread practice to patch around just about everything else constantly demanding your personal info and leaking it everywhere“

Is it? Can you give some examples of how this is used?

I have never seen any reporting on this practice. What makes you think it is widespread?


> You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains.

In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains.


> In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains.

Various UK sources seem to think you do, and cite specific government guidelines for the practice, e.g.:

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/


In my experience of doing this, the cost was negligible. If you freaked out and spent a lot of money on it, that's your business.

> the penalty is prison time, and not a fine

You aren't going to prison for an honest mistake. mens rea, innit.

As some solicitors say [1]:

> It is a criminal offence not to:

> * Take reasonable steps to find out if there is anyone who is a PSC and identify them to Companies House

> * Give notice to the registrar of companies of an entry alteration or note in a company’s PSC register within 14 days of any change being made

> The sanctions for such offences are a fine or possible imprisonment.

> In the event that you do not comply with your PSC requirements Companies House will contact your business and give you an opportunity to rectify the position, before proceeding to enforcement action.

https://www.gl.law/insight/news/criminal-effects-psc-regulat...


You seem like someone who isn't risk-averse. Personally, I like to know that what I'm doing doesn't put me at the mercy of an annoyed / overworked bureaucrat. I don't think it's only police officers who sometimes enforce where they shouldn't.


What additional burden do you think the bill puts on small businesses?


> The act also makes “deliberate false statements or willful evasion of its requirements” a federal crime, punishable by up to three years in jail.


The relevant words being ‘deliberate’ and ‘willful’, meaning the prosecution will have to prove your intent beyond reasonable doubt.

If there is no crime to point to beyond misfiling, there will be no case for willful intent.


As someone else pointed out, those words seem ripe for exploitation by prosecutors looking for a plea-bargain.


As I have replied elsewhere, that’s only a problem if they have something else on you.

Legitimate businesses don’t have to stress about a clerical error landing them in jail.


Better to have a well written law on the side of the civilian than a badly written one that can be enforced on the whim of a bureaucrat. At least, that's the way I see it.


That doesn’t seem to be related to this topic in any obvious way.


That seems pretty similar to every government form that I've ever filled out.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: