Current Month (October 2026)
Business Crimes & Corporate Compliance
The CTA’s Rise from Its August Tomb
By William E. H. Quick, Outside Inside Counsel, LLC
Visit Business Law Today’s October 2026 in Brief: Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships to read the full update on the Corporate Transparency Act.
Consumer Finance Law
Circuit Momentum Builds for Furnisher-Friendly FCRA Standard
By Claire E. Monroe, Pilgrim Christakis LLP
An emerging multi-circuit consensus requires that information disputed under section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) be “objectively and readily verifiable” as inaccurate. With the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Ward v. National Credit Systems, Inc., 182 F.4th 918 (10th Cir. 2026), five federal circuits have now adopted this standard, insulating furnishers from disputes that demand complex fact-gathering, credibility determinations, or resolution of unsettled legal questions.
The Tenth Circuit recently confirmed in Ward that a consumer must make a prima facie showing that disputed information is “in fact inaccurate or incomplete” to prevail on an unreasonable-investigation claim. Importantly, the claimed inaccuracy must be objectively and readily verifiable by the furnisher as containing a mistake or error. With this decision, the Tenth Circuit joins the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits in applying the objectively-and-readily-verifiable standard for actionable inaccuracy under section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA.
Under this standard, information is objectively and readily verifiable as inaccurate when it consists of “purely factual or transcription errors or a straightforward application of law to facts.” Conversely, disputes involving “complex fact-gathering and in-depth legal analysis,” “unsettled questions of law,” or “credibility determinations and quasi-discovery” do not meet this standard.
For furnishers of consumer information, the objectively-and-readily-verifiable standard meaningfully narrows the universe of actionable section 1681s-2(b) claims, particularly in fraud and identity-theft disputes that rest on subjective consumer allegations rather than evidence that can be independently corroborated.
Tax Law
Second Circuit Adopts “Functional Approach” for Limited-Partner Exception to Self-Employment Taxes
By Timothy M. Todd, Liberty University School of Law
In Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner, No. 25-2079 (L) (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2026), the Second Circuit addressed the limited-partner exception to self-employment taxes. The self-employment tax is levied by 26 U.S.C. § 1401, and it is levied on the “self-employment income of every individual.” Under § 1402(a), a partner’s distributive share of partnership income is included in the definition of self-employment income. However, the distributive share of a limited partner is excluded from the definition (except for guaranteed payments).
At issue in the case was whether the principals of an investment-management limited partnership were “limited partners” for purposes of § 1402. The principals of the limited partnership worked full-time for it, managed its investments, and exercised managerial control over the limited partnership.
The limited partnership argued that the term means “any partner of a limited partnership with limited liability.” By contrast, the Commissioner advanced a functional approach, meaning the term contemplates someone who does not control the business and is more like a passive investor.
The Second Court held that ‘“limited partner,’ as used in § 1402(a)(13), means a partner who, in addition to having limited liability, does not run, manage, or control the partnership’s business.”
In support of its conclusion, the court examined the statute’s ordinary meaning in 1977 (when it was enacted), its surrounding text and structure, and its legislative history. Importantly, the court emphasized that, upon the statute’s enactment, “an essential feature of the limited partner in 1977 was a lack of participation in running the partnership’s business.” The court also noted that the lack of managerial control was also an important element of contemporaneous state partnership laws.
