Understanding the Rationale Behind BOI
The BOI mandate emerged as part of a broader effort to clamp down on financial crimes, partly in response to concerns about international corporations exploiting opaque structures and raising alarms. BOI requires companies to disclose who truly owns and controls them. Regulators aim to expose domestic and international entities that might use the corporate veil to facilitate money laundering, tax evasion, fraud, or other illicit activities.

When Transparency Feels Like a Double-Edged Sword
Although BOI was created with purported noble intentions, its current implementation of BOI seems to place an unfair burden on small business owners while leaving large corporations largely unaffected. Major companies like Amazon, Target, and Google, as well as other giants such as Walmart, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Costco, and Home Depot, are exempt from these strict reporting requirements. These exemptions are typically granted to international companies or those with high revenue, which easily exceed the regulatory threshold. As a result, small businesses are the only ones required to bear the administrative and financial costs of complying with BOI.

Law-Abiding Americans Pay the Price for Non-Citizens’ Misdeeds
It also seems that regular, law-abiding Americans are paying the penalty for the misdeeds of noncitizens. Why should we suffer the consequences of the behavior of those who are not law-abiding? If anything, BOI should be required from noncitizens or from citizens who have international ties, such as family and business connections. By focusing on these groups, regulators could target the areas most susceptible to misuse of corporate structures while sparing those who abide by the law. This approach would not only foster a sense of fairness, but also strengthen the overall integrity of the system.

System Rigged Against the Little Guy
Under the current approach, BOI creates an uneven playing field. Small business owners, who are already struggling with limited resources and tough competition, now face a burdensome mandate that feels invasive. It is almost as if they are being subjected to state surveillance. Instead of creating fairness, the current BOI rules seem to favor large corporations while squeezing out smaller competitors.

The question remains: why impose such a heavy requirement on those who are less likely to commit high-value crimes? If the goal is to foster fairness and transparency, is it not counterproductive if only one segment of the market is subjected to such burdens? Rather than protecting the public, this uneven implementation risks destroying the entrepreneurial spirit by crushing innovation and placing undue strain on small business owners, who are the backbone of the economy.