Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: When Is It a Good Idea To Incorporate?

First time accepted submitter stairmaster writes "A couple of months ago I came across an opportunity to supplement my income by doing some consulting work (read mobile app development) on the side. It appears that I will be doing this work for some time and my question for you is this: is it worth it to incorporate as a business? I know that the answer to this question is extremely dependent on circumstance but I'm interested in your experiences. Have you been in a similar situation, and if you have how did it work out for you?"

293 comments

  1. As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you have any assets at all, it's a good idea to incorporate to shield them from lawsuits. (It puts the Limited in Limited Liability)

    1. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between an LLC and a Corp. Is the OP talking about becoming an LLC or a full blown corporation?

    2. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anvil+the+Ninja · · Score: 2

      IANAL, but be advised there are procedures to get around that shielding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil). I ran a software consulting business as an S-corporation years ago and got strongly worded advice to be very careful not to mix personal and company funds, to use any corporation-purchased computers for work only, and not to claim a general use room in our home as a home office for deductions.

    3. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by AwesomeMcgee · · Score: 1

      Precisely. It's a sham of a legal system the way it works but I've seen people get tons of loans for their "business" to pay themselves their salary/pay their bills/etc and then file bankruptcy under the business to disavow all of these loans without it ever harming their personal credit one bit. Limited liability, read: No liability. If you're making money in a position where you can legitimately claim a business, do it.

    4. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by mr1911 · · Score: 2

      Agree with this. The sooner the better.

      As to how to incorporate, you did not provide enough information and Slashdot isn't the best forum to handle this. Hire a competent attorney.

      Running your own business isn't all fun and giggles. Spend a few bucks and do this properly. It may save your ass down the line.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    5. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Informative

      From my experience, an LLC is used for partnerships. In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's. Often they are for protecting the partners from each other.. (ie, accountant partner screws up.. Lawsuit can hurt the partner, but they can't go after the assets of the other partners, if they were not involved)

      Corporations are a way to shield owners (stock holders) from liability. (You can sue Bill Gates, when MS screws up, just because he's a stock-holder)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    6. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Informative

      >Corporations are a way to shield owners (stock holders) from liability. (You can sue Bill Gates, when MS screws up, just because he's a stock-holder)

      Why no edit button Slashdot? that should be you can NOT sue Bill Gates....

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    7. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Mephistophocles · · Score: 2

      In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's.

      True but you can technically form an LLC in any state you want. Delaware and Nevada are the most popular due to their lenient oversight laws (on LLC's at least).

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    8. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe you're confusing LLC's with LLP's. LLC's are general purpose vehicles for just this sort of scenarios. LLP's are designed for the unique constraints of Architechture, Law, Medical and similar **licensed** professions; and as such, limit who can form. Straight "partnerships" on the other hand (meaning not LLP) can be formed without any paperwork at all, by simple agreeing to try to sell/make stuff with another person.

    9. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL. You might be thinking of LLPs which can usually only be formed by certain types of professionals like lawyers, licenced PEs, or accountants. LLCs can be formed with only one person on the board in most states that I am aware of. You do need to adequately capitalize the corporation up front to actually have limited liability though.

    10. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by F34nor · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is what is so wrong with the US. Corporations were originally granted limited liability for investors in return for limited rights. Now that the 14th amendment has granted "human rights" to "property" corporations have both limited liability and human rights giving them in fact more rights than humans. This is why Romney saying "corporations are people my friend" is so dangerous. If corporations want to petition government the executives can spend their considerable income to do it, the employees can spend their merger income to do it and the investors can liquidate some stock and spend their money to do it but the corporation itself petitioning government would be as abhorrent to the founders as tax free churches telling people how to vote.

    11. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by spire3661 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thats what PREVIEW is for.

      --
      Good-bye
    12. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As an add on to this, just going to legalzoom and setting up a $99 LLC will not buy you any protection from a decent litigator. Unless you can show that you are really following the intended letter of the law, e.g. have quarterly or annual meetings regarding the corp. with minutes, etc. the judge can simply look right past a paper LLC. If you are going to do it, do it right and get advise from a good lawyer. Because if you don't you are basically wasting your time.

    13. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you're thinking of an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership), not an LLC.

    14. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by devman · · Score: 1

      Honestly that is the creditors fault. If a lender lent money to a business with no credit history without having the owner(s) personally guarantee them (co-sign) then they can't be surprised by this outcome.

    15. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why no edit button Slashdot?

      Some message boards that have an edit button create sometimes quite confusing discussions.

    16. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by afidel · · Score: 1

      The computer one seems funny to me, as an example with corporate cars there's a standard personal use line for payroll taxes (including for an S-corp), I'd assume you'd just have to declare that a certain percentage of the PC use was personal and pay payroll taxes on that fraction of the depreciation schedule.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    17. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe many states have one or the other.

      LLC's are generally limited to 60 partners or less, you get pass-thru taxation (unlike corporations who are all double taxed), and you get the liability shield IF, and ONLY IF, you treat your business as a wholly seperate entity.

      If you go comingling assets between you and the business, when someone comes after the business, your stuff will be fair game too.

    18. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Why no edit button Slashdot? that should be you can NOT sue Bill Gates....

      So that evil people cannot wait until their comments are modified to +5 Insightful before changing all the content to links to tubgirl or goatse

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    19. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, LLC rules differ from state to state. Most states do not require LLCs to have annual meetings, but they do have other requirements.

      It's important to do the research.

    20. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by UtterCoward · · Score: 2

      As AC above points out, you have to be careful with your LLC. In additional to no commingling assets, you have to be aware of the possibility that single-owner LLCs can be treated as Sole Proprietorships for purposes of litigation. If you are being sued and the judge decides that your LLC is in fact an SP, you have no liability protection at all. Having at least one other contributing partner -- preferably not a spouse -- should keep that from biting you.

    21. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

      *That's

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    22. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Banichi · · Score: 2

      Good Lawyer is the emphasis.

      An acquaintance of mine is currently talking to the IRS/State/Local tax revenuers due to the notices they had sent going to the lawyer who set up the LLC, instead of her. The lawyer didn't notify anyone that the LLC was dissolved after two years of non-payment to the revenuers, 10+ years ago.

      The lawyer saw my acquaintance just about every month since, so no "out of sight, out of mind" accident claims. This was a massive screw up on his part.

      Long story short, fuck lawyers. Do the heavy lifting yourself.
      Oh, the law is so obtuse you can't get a foothold?
      Welcome to America, here's your accordion.

    23. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Precisely. It's a sham of a legal system the way it works but I've seen people get tons of loans for their "business" to pay themselves their salary/pay their bills/etc and then file bankruptcy under the business to disavow all of these loans without it ever harming their personal credit one bit. Limited liability, read: No liability. If you're making money in a position where you can legitimately claim a business, do it.

      If other creditors of the corporation discover the fraud that was perpetrated, and they will, it won't bode well for the person who attempts to do what you describe.

    24. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Aquitaine · · Score: 1

      This is what is so wrong with the US. Corporations were originally granted limited liability for investors in return for limited rights.

      Corporations were not "granted" to anybody and certainly not in exchange for anything.

      Corporate organization is done at the state level. Each state has different laws (though they typically have to accept 'foreign' entities, e.g. companies/corps from other states, if they want to do business in their state).

      The federal government did not have some secret corporation power that it decided to bestow on people in exchange for something. States enabled people to form companies and corporations to further commerce. If everybody were personally liable for everything their company did (as opposed to, perhaps, limited/i> liability), nobody would run companies.

    25. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      If you commingle assets in any type of corporation the shield is broken. You might also be on the hook for defrauding your investors.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hire a competent attorney.

      NO! This is terrible advice. The attorney will cost you thousands of $ and steer you toward the most expensive option. This just isn't that complicated.

      The choice is simple: If you expect to ever seek VC funding or have an IPO then form a Delaware C Corp. Otherwise form an S Corp in the state where you reside and/or do the majority of your business. There are plenty of websites where you can do this online for a few hundred bucks. I use www.businessfilings.com for all my domestic corporations, but there are probably other sites just as good.

    27. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      From my experience, an LLC is used for partnerships. In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's. Often they are for protecting the partners from each other.. (ie, accountant partner screws up.. Lawsuit can hurt the partner, but they can't go after the assets of the other partners, if they were not involved)

      There's also an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) which is slightly different than a LLC.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    28. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by lord_mike · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is an incorrect assumption. Being a shareholder does indemnify you from most lawsuits, but the board of directors can be personally liable as well as the corporate officers. If you are a small business as an s-corp, you will still be personally on the hook for most things. The only real protection that incorporation offers is liability from your investors. Investors have little to no recourse if you lose all their money. You are not shielded from other forms of liability, such as personal injury or negligence. You can still be sued directly along with the corporation you own, since you would be the presiding officer and CEO. Protection from creditors is mixed. While you may be protected from personal action if you stiff a supplier, the bank may require you to be personally responsible for any loan to your company as a condition of credit.

      You should confer with an attorney before incorporating any business. The few hundred dollars in consultation fee is worth doing it right.

    29. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by ryanmc1 · · Score: 1

      Why not allow editing for 5 minutes, then block it. I always find my mistakes in the first 5 minutes of the post being live. Yes I should probably proof read better, but nobody's perfect.

    30. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Yes, I believe you are right, I was thinking LLC.. I either exceeded my caffine limits, or have not quite yet met them.. Its a thin grey line :)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    31. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      I should add that protection from investors is not absolute. If an investor thinks that you defrauded them, they can still sue you personally.

      People think that being a corporation shields you from almost anything, and you can do whatever you want without fear of personal repercussions. That's simply not true!

    32. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jdray · · Score: 2

      IANAL, however, here in Oregon, at least, LLC stands for "Limited Liability Company", not "Corporation" (a common misconception, BTW). This is in some small way different from an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership). I have interests in both types of organization, but honestly let the lawyers determine what the best form of organization to create is/was. Also, corporations have two different forms, a "C-corp", which is evidently designed for large, publicly traded companies, and an "S-corp", which is a way for individuals or small companies to incorporate without all the rules (board meetings, recorded minutes, etc.) of the C-corp. My understanding is that, in the case of S-corps, income is treated as a straight pass-through to the shareholders' personal income, and the corporation itself pays no taxes directly. This is similar to an LLC and LLP. Having said all this, I'd better declare that IANATA (Tax Accountant), either.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    33. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, nobody's perfect. but some of us can at leest write with perfect spelling and puncutation.

    34. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Githaron · · Score: 1

      If everybody were personally liable for everything their company did (as opposed to, perhaps, limited/i> liability), nobody would run companies.

      Be honest. Whether corporations are good or bad, people were running businesses way before limited liability was put in place.

    35. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Because business and commerce never existed before the concept of "limited liability" was created, right?

    36. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Githaron · · Score: 2

      They should let you edit your posts until someone either mods or comments on it.

    37. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Aquitaine · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure, but that was also before tort and the idea of 'full liability' were in place. Prior to the LLC, big businesses could shield their investors and owners but small businesses had a hard time doing so - the LLC was a way to equalize that protection.

      Enough people with enough resources will always find a way to protect themselves. If you got rid of LLCs, that wouldn't change - but your average wannabe entrepreneur would have a lot harder time of things because he hasn't got access to all the lawyers and accountants you'd need to achieve limited liability without an easy legal avenue.

      You don't have to know a lot about corporate law to realize why it makes sense. The most you risk when you change jobs is your new salary (in the event that your new job sucks, you get laid off, or your employer goes under). Entrepreneurs gamble a lot more to get off the ground (like savings or loans from family and friends) so their risk is already quite a lot higher -- enable their customers or investors to repossess their houses and cars and you'll just have fewer people starting businesses and cede more of the market to bigger corporations.

    38. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ever since the corporation was invented, it has had many "human rights": the right to hold property, the right to buy and sell, the right to form contracts, the right to sue and be sued, etc. The legal question is not whether corporations have any rights, nor whether they have all the rights of a natural person (no one asserts that) but what non-null subset of human rights they do have.

      Corporations are people: living, breathing people. Corporations are comprised neither of space aliens nor of soulless robots, but of real people, organized for collective action. When a corporation acts, it acts through people. The key question regarding human rights, such as the right to free speech, is whether citizens must entirely surrender their right to free speech when they organize together under a corporate form.

      If citizens have rights when acting individually, why should those rights disappear when they act collectively?

    39. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

      It's just not that complicated, so it wont cost many thousands from a decent attorney, unless you want a full corporate setup with consulting on how to set up the minutes, how to avoid piercing the corporate veil, and other issues. But for an LLC and some basic advice, it doesn't cost that much, and you'd get correct advice unlike what you are giving. There are enough complications and mistakes that people make doing it on their own to make it worth setting it up right the first time if the business has any success. Most people should not set up an S corporation because they do not understand the record keeping requirements and the various estate, share, and liability issues. So please don't give advice when you don't know what you're talking about. Especially don't advise people not to seek competent advice.

    40. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol . but . but . but

    41. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a change log on your post. Just a little link in the bottom that will show the whens and why for changes.

    42. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      For the economy to grow we need people to take risks. Having a business requires you to put up a lot of risk. However if it fails (lets say you broke an Apple Pattent and got sued by them.) Your business and your effort would be tossed out, but your personal home and what not wouldn't be effected.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    43. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      NO! This is terrible advice. The attorney will cost you thousands of $ and steer you toward the most expensive option. This just isn't that complicated.

      User name explained: Bill has been Shanghai'd by an attorney in the past.

      If you attorney is not small business friendly and does not comprehend your budget, you have hired the wrong attorney. Most will consult with you to determine what method of incorporation works best and then step back and let you do the legwork yourself to save costs. Doing this wrong can cost you far more than you save by cheaping out to start with.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    44. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, but that was also before tort and the idea of 'full liability' were in place.

      Both tort and full liability existed long -- as in many centuries -- before corporate liability shields were created (in 1855); and even longer before the special corporate-like but tax-neutral-and-more-flexible-in-organization US LLCs were created (in 1977).

      Prior to the LLC, big businesses could shield their investors and owners but small businesses had a hard time doing so - the LLC was a way to equalize that protection.

      No, it isn't. The primary motivation for creating the was to create a low-ceremony (unlike a corporation), liability-shielded, flexible structure for members (often, themselves corporations rather than individuals) with the resources to craft their own management agreements rather than relying on the default rules applicable to corporations. Private corporations are a more common small-business structure, LLCs are more often big business structures (often, subsidiaries of or joint ventures between big corporations) than tools of small business.

      You don't have to know a lot about corporate law to realize why it makes sense.

      Knowing a lot about corporate law is probably detrimental to finding the argument you make sensible.

      The most you risk when you change jobs is your new salary (in the event that your new job sucks, you get laid off, or your employer goes under).

      This is false. In addition to reviewing the concept of opportunity cost, I suggest you consider the situation of the risks associated with workplace safety.

    45. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Or unwind moderation if you choose to edit

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    46. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Corporations are people:

      Only in the same sense as Soylent Green.

      The key question regarding human rights, such as the right to free speech, is whether citizens must entirely surrender their right to free speech when they organize together under a corporate form.

      The citizens need surrender nothing. They are free to spend their own money and say whatever they like. But the corporate money isn't theirs, it belongs to some legal entity which can own money. I don't see why a legal entity should have to have the same rules as an individual on this one issue.

      If citizens have rights when acting individually, why should those rights disappear when they act collectively?

      They shouldn't of course, but then neither should they gain extra rights when they act collectively.

      Or, more to the point, once they form some legal entity to shield them, they are no longer free to use the resources of that entity to act as they like.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    47. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where talking to people about their experiences should be supplemented by talking to a lawyer to help decide which corporate form is best for you. "Incorporate" could mean anything from getting a registered trade name to forming a proper corporation and selling stock to strangers. Each form has advantages and disadvantages, which can range from taxation to state fees to register the company and from liability protection to getting lost in red tape.

      An LLC is a very flexible form of corporate entity that bridges the gap between an LLP and a true corporation. Unlike a partnership, it can have a sole owner. Unlike a corporation, it does not have to have an elected board of directors. It is often, but not always, the best choice for a business where you are not likely to bring in outside investors.

      If you decide you want to incorporate, which is also a valid question to get a lawyer's input on deciding, then you need to think about which form is best for you. Reading online can help, but you will get lots of wrong or at least misleading information along the way. A lawyer will charge you for his time but can help you decide what is best for your personal needs. As a ballpark figure, I have seen lawyers charge from $300 to $1,000 to form an LLP, LLC, or corporation and the state filing fees of course vary but budget $300-600 for that.

      What do you get for the filing fee? Possibly nothing, if you file the wrong corporate form or do not get the other paperwork in order. What you get in exchange for the legal fees to advise you and help you form the company is twofold: First, the right level of liability protection for you and, second, the peace of mind that you have that. Just like a lawyer should ask you before he buys an IBM mainframe as a file server, you should ask a lawyer before you set up a fancy corporation. In both cases, the expert is worth his fee to help you get both the right setup for your needs and the right help in learning how to operate it.

      #include <disclaimer.h> I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. I have set up, dissolved, sued, defended, etc. several forms of company in several jurisdictions. My vested interest in your situation is that my hourly rate for fixing mistakes made while forming a corporate entity in court is higher than my hourly rate to form one. The above is friendly advice, not legal advice, and may or may not apply to your situation. Etc.

    48. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by cob666 · · Score: 1

      It's not so much about assets as it is about income. If your new business is making money and you have expenses you're much better off forming a corporation right from the start. Based on what my accountant (both past and present) have told me as well as my tax attorney, it's much easier to claim expenses when you have a valid legal entity for your company. Also, if something were to happen to your business, you want to have the liability protection that a corporation offers (you're still responsible for loans or lines of credit personally guaranteed by you). While there are many similarities between an LLC and say, an S-Corp, when the shit hits the fan, some types of LLCs can be classified as either partnerships or sole-proprietors and the owners can be held fiscally responsible.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    49. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      By the same logic, if citizens carry personal responsibility when acting individually, why do those responsibilities disappear when they act collectively? Why can't we garnish wages of shareholders when a company goes bankrupt to pay of creditors or pay judgements?

    50. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      This wasn't flamebait. I recently had a sig with a line about licking butts.

      Sorry ya took the hit for me taking that down, man.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    51. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Corporations are people: living, breathing people.

      Then why are corporations allowed to be bought and sold?

      In fact, related to that, I am not sure that it is a good idea that corporations are allowed to own other corporations.. I would like to see some restrictions on what can own a corporation; it should only be actual people that can incorporate, not other corporations. Then we could always see who is actually responsible for the corporate malfeasance that regularly occurs.

    52. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Be honest. Whether corporations are good or bad, people were running businesses way before limited liability was put in place.

      Yes, but this is today...and you need to play things smart within the current system that exists!!

      My advice....incorporate yourself immediately!!

      First, as other mention, it limits liability for damage and creditors taking your personal possessions.

      Second, this is about the ONLY way to keep more of your hard earned tax dollars. YOU can begin to write off all expenses, mileage (keep a logbook in your car to write odometer settings, easy documentation).

      Also, and I'd recommend this...look into setting up a subchapter "S" corp. This will allow you to keep more of your money from being sucked up into SS and medicare taxes (employment taxation).

      Get a CPA...to make sure you file correctly and on time. You figure out what you bill for the year, and out of that pay yourself (according to the IRS) a 'reasonable' salary. Out of that portion, you pay employment taxes...the rest falls through to personal income at EOY, and you only have to pay state/federal taxes on that.

      Example...say you bill $100K a year. You could pay yourself a reasonable salary of $40K. So, you will have to pay SS and medicare on that $40K....along with state and federal (taken out of payroll like normal). But at EOY, you only have to pay state and federal on the remaining $60K. This can be significant.

      Also, look into setting up a HSA (Health Savings Account) for yourself....and load it up pre-tax for routine medical spending. You can qualify to get one of these by signing up for a higher deductible insurance policy...for catastrophic only needs (used to be termed Major Medical).

      Get with a bank and they will help you set up the HSA...this is not a use it or lose it...it grows annually, and if you want you can also invest some or all of this fund to make money for you. If it remains when you retire, you can convert this money to retirement funds. I found this was a great tool, and frankly, I wish the feds would promote this rather than try more and more to hinder it as it was done some with the recent Obama care bill.

      That aside....yes, it is extra paper work, but once you get into the swing of it, not that difficult, when you start to see the $$ saving abilities it gives you. You do NOT have to cheat....this is legal, and available to you.

      Get a CPA to work with (their fees are deductible too)...keep it legal and reasonable. Also, I'd recommend getting a copy of Quickbooks. This makes it easy to track your billing, income, outgo.....and at EOY, you can send it to your CPA to make it fairly quick and painless. If a good CPA that handles small businesses...they can help put you in contact with people in case you need liability insurance...one of my contract required I have this and I was put in touch with people that got me the min of what I needed and helped me do just enough to get set up and working.

      I paid a lawyer about $250 years back and gave them a name. In 2 weeks, I had all the registrations and all I needed with the state and was a registered business. You can do it yourself....different difficulties in different states. Heck, look into the incorporating in Delaware like others do...not sure the exact benefits doing it there...but there are some.

      Put a little thought and research into the start of it...and once you learn a few steps (quarterly filings with feds and state if over a certain amount for salary paid)...it becomes second nature.

      It is a PITA that the govt does require so many hoops to jump through...yet they claim to want to make it easier on small businesses (large corps pay whole departments to do this fiscal stuff and permits, etc), but it can be done by the individual. And in the end, it is worth. it.

      If for nothing else...to keep as much of your hard earned money as you can for yourself. It is worth it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    53. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Incorporating cannot shield you from your own actions. IT can only shield you from actions you are not directly responsible for.

      For instance, if you hire an employee and this employee is properly trained but makes a mistake that costs a failure in a product resulting in millions of dollars in damages, your corporation is the only extent responsible and your personal assets are separated. If you are that employee, you can technically be held liable (depending on the circumstances) personally beyond any corporate shield. Some areas will put limitations on the liability of employees who make mistakes and push the bulk of the liability onto the company they work for.

      Here is a more detailed example. Suppose you owned a construction company who builds decks for commercial properties. You and 5 employees are at a job site working and discover some bolts are missing and you cannot install the next section of framing. Instead of waiting to get the proper bolts, someone says there is a hardware store down the street. You go and discover they carry bolts that look like what is needed but are a lesser grade (grade 3 or grade 5 instead of grade 8). Their supply is also less then you need but you decide that if you use one less bolt per segment, you can get the framing completed then replace the bolts the next day when you have enough of the proper bolts. This goes well until clean up time when the property owner's agent comes around to check on the progress. A wind kicks up and the structure saws to the left before it collapses causing structural damage to the building and breaks the leg and back of the agent sent to inspect the progress. In this case, you and your corporation liable if they sue because the fault was a direct act of your own and you should have known better. Now suppose you never left the office and one of your employees made the call, it is your employee and your corporation who are responsible. But suppose you had all the bolts and they were marked of the correct grade but where incorrectly marked from the factory, now it is just your corporation that is liable and there is a strong case to recover any losses from the supply chain within this liability.

      Corporations only limit the liability over situations and actions that are not directly your fault. They do not allow you to become reckless or dangerous at the expense of others while protecting your BMW, 250 billion dollar house and whatever else you have accumulated by taking shortcuts in the field.

      If you are ever in a position where you think you might need a corporation to protect your financial interest outside your business from your own acts, you are definitely in a position to consider liability insurance that would cover 2-3 times the value of your assets and pay out on the completion of a trial judgement. In fact, I would say it is more important to get this liability insurance then a corporation or alongside an incorporation if you are hoping to protect assets.

    54. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If other creditors of the corporation discover the fraud that was perpetrated, and they will, it won't bode well for the person who attempts to do what you describe."

      Other creditors could have / should have known about it from the bankruptcy proceedings. If they didn't, again it's their fault.

    55. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "People think that being a corporation shields you from almost anything, and you can do whatever you want without fear of personal repercussions. That's simply not true!"

      They think that because they see it in the news every day.

    56. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by niado · · Score: 1

      In cases of fraud (such as you describe) the courts can employ a legal mechanism called piercing the corporate veil.

    57. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      Corporations are bought and sold by people. When this happens, the set of people comprising the corporation changes, but it is still a set of people.

    58. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      The question is: why should limited liability impose a constraint on collective political speech? In the USA, there is a very strong bar against imposing liability for political speech, so why should limited liability disqualify a collective of citizens from speaking on political issues?

    59. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Ever since the corporation was invented, it has had many "human rights": the right to hold property, the right to buy and sell, the right to form contracts, the right to sue and be sued, etc."

      No, they haven't, and this is where many people get mixed up. Including the Supreme Court recently, to my utter astonishment.

      "Rights", according to our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution, belong to us simply as a consequence of existing as human beings. Government (technically) does not have the power to either bestow or abridge "rights".

      The ability of corporations to act as "people" in some respects, are privileges granted by government. They are not "rights" of any kind. Those privileges can be granted, taken away, or altered by Congress or state governments at any time. Therefore they cannot be "rights" in any meaningful sense of the term.

      "If citizens have rights when acting individually, why should those rights disappear when they act collectively? "

      They don't. Your concept of a "collective right" never existed in the first place. Again, you are mixed up. A person has rights. A parade doesn't. A riot doesn't. The crowd at a baseball game doesn't. The individuals do. The crowd does not. Same with corporations... or at least until the Supreme Court came out with that bonehead Citizens United decision. It will inevitably be overturned by a future court.

    60. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They have it on Reddit, and it works just fine. When people make a substantial change to their post after-the-fact (rather than 5 seconds after hitting "submit"), especially after replies have been made, they append the new text at the edit, or make a note, prefaced with "EDIT:", so that you know the post has been edited, usually to fix grammar.

      Are Slashdotters so stupid they can't handle this bit of web-etiquette? Reddit doesn't even cater to an audience of self-proclaimed techies, it's for the general (internet) public, though it does have some sections on there that are aimed at techies like r/technology, r/science, r/Linux, etc.

    61. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think the big picture you are missing is that personal responsibility is relative to your own actions and interactions. The reason for separating the two is because you normally do not directly act or even have the power to act within a corporation. I acquiring debt as a corporation, the companies agreeing to extend it are also agreeing to limit their recovery to that of the corporation's assets.

      Here is the challenge for you. Suppose we both have $100 and a car. I ask to borrow your $100 to purchase another car and resell it for profit and you agree. I then take that money and purchase drugs to resell while telling you I'm trying to purchase a car from a friend cheaply and I can resell for double the money. I pay back your $100 with $100 interest. The cops pull us both over on the way out of the parking lot of where we met, it seems that during my resale efforts, I sold to an undercover cop who paid in marked bills. They find the marked money in both my wallet and in the pile of cash I gave you.

      You did legitimately help finance my efforts but had no clue I was doing something illegal, improper, or that isn't done legally every day and had no say in what i did. Are you also a drug dealer? What if someone I sold drugs to overdosed and died? Should their family sue you too? You have or should have no responsibility or liability for my actions unless you specifically knew of them before enabling them with the loan. But how can anyone prove that?

    62. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      Limited liability is indeed a key difference between corporations and natural persons. Public policy dating back to Elizabethan England has found it to be useful and beneficial to the commonweal. I've yet to see why limited liability justifies imposing political censorship on law-abiding citizens.

    63. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's because the cases where people get away with it and it's in the news are all large companies, not little 1-3 person companies.

    64. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "They shouldn't of course, but then neither should they gain extra rights when they act collectively."

      This.

      Precisely. You put it better than I did.

    65. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "... so why should limited liability disqualify a collective of citizens from speaking on political issues?"

      It doesn't. The "collective" never had any "rights" in the first place. Only individual human beings do.

      There is no such thing as a collective right. The Supreme Court has declared as much, more than once.

      (Then, of course, contradicted itself with the majority opinion in Citizens United.)

    66. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "I've yet to see why limited liability justifies imposing political censorship on law-abiding citizens."

      You are making the same conceptual mistake as so many others here.

      This is precisely why most analysts have said that SCOTUS erred in its Citizens United decision.

      Censoring political speech by corporations is NOT censoring political speech by individuals. The individuals who make up the corporation -- the actual holders of 1st- and 4th-Amendment rights -- are not censored at all. Just the corporation. So any loss of "rights" is completely imaginary.

      You are assuming that a corporation somehow has extra rights that the individual citizens who make it up do not. That is not true.

    67. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Corporations are people: living, breathing people. Corporations are comprised neither of space aliens nor of soulless robots, but of real people, organized for collective action.

      Not so. Corporations are formed of money and contracts and legal structure. The entire reason for corporations to exist is to divest oneself of risk and responsibility for the actions of your investments.

      When a corporation acts, it acts through people.

      This is true. But those are not the people who the corporation actually represents. The shareholders are who the corporation acts as proxy for, not employees of the corporation (including executives) -- insofar as those employees and executives are acting in their role as such, and not acting as shareholders should they happen to own shares..

      The key question regarding human rights, such as the right to free speech, is whether citizens must entirely surrender their right to free speech when they organize together under a corporate form.

      That's not the key question. It doesn't even make sense, when divorcing the entity from the citizen is the entire purpose of incorporation. No citizen gives up their right to free speech when they invest in a corporation. The question is, why should an intangible legal entity have the same rights as a citizen?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    68. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The question is: why should limited liability impose a constraint on collective political speech?

      Because limited liability is designed to separate the person from the entity. Why should the entity have any right to political speech? It is not a person, it is not a citizen. It cannot vote. You do not give up any rights to free speech (or any other human rights) when you form an LLC.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    69. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      I don't understand why people don't know this already. The protection from liability is only there to protect you from actions not of your own in the course of doing business. If you tell an employee to use a substandard part, you can be personally liable even with a corporation if it breaks and causes harm. If an employee does this, you are liable to the extent of the corporation and the employee can be liable (in most cases). If the supplier ships the substandard part representative as the required part, its the corporation who is liable and that can be negated or recovered by the supplier's culpability.

      In addition to conferring with an attorney, you should look into liability insurance to protect your assets against in case you become personally liable. In some areas this is called an umbrella policy and it pays in the event other insurance doesn't cover the complete damages or liability.

    70. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you are the one who is mixed up. By your reasoning, the New York Times Corporation has no right to publish, since it is a collective body. By your reasoning, it publishes only under sufferance of the government of the day, which is free to impose any type of censorship it desires. By your reasoning, if you and I form a partnership, the government could, without due process of law, confiscate our shared property at whim, since we have no 'rights' collectively. That is not the law, so your reasoning is faulty.

      Contrary to what many leftist legal commentators assert, Citizens United did not invent rights of corporations, but build on a long line of precedent, including First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978. It is an incremental decision, rather than a revolutionary one.

    71. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You have or should have no responsibility or liability for my actions unless you specifically knew of them before enabling them with the loan.

      This is a false analogy in some ways. In your example the drug-seller is an individual who is responsible for their actions. A corporation is no such thing. Let's say you create an enterprise, with documentation and everything, to buy and sell cars at a profit. You ask your buddy for $100 to get you started, in exchange for partial ownership of the enterprise. He agrees, gives you the cash, and then you go on to buy and sell drugs. Does he have responsibilty? Yes. He did not oversee the actions of the entity (like a partner in a partnership) or hire anyone to do so (like shareholders in traditional corporation). His money enabled the drug dealing.

      It doesn't matter if he knew of the specific actions you'd take with his money. He should have known, it is his responsibility as a partner or shareholder.

      This is one reason why we pay corporate board members so much. They assume a lot of the personal risk that the shareholders would otherwise hold. The legal structure allows shareholders to divest the risk onto the board... but someone can still be held accountable to some extent.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    72. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Censoring political speech by corporations is NOT censoring political speech by individuals.

      So if you and I form a corporation to publish a newspaper, we both supply the money and get stock shares, but we decide you'll be the newspaper editor and I'll run the printing presses, or whatever, then it's legal for the government to censor that newspaper, because it's not censoring our individual speech?

      You don't see how ridiculous that sounds? The government is preventing the owner's free speech if it censors the owner's corporation. The corporation is simply a legal entity for a group of individual people to work together toward a common cause.

      That cause may be publishing a newspaper (NY Times), or arguing for civil rights (ACLU), or publishing a movie about a politician (Citizens United), or for selling chocolate (Nestle), but the fact that people have organized themselves in a particular way for financial and effectiveness reasons doesn't mean they suddenly forfeit their right to free speech.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    73. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that, in the case of S-corps, income is treated as a straight pass-through to the shareholders' personal income, and the corporation itself pays no taxes directly.

      True, except that it's not passed through when the S-Corp earns the income, it is passed through when it's distributed to the owner(s). There are other rules governing when distributions to owners have to be made, etc.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    74. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      The entity is not a citizen, but it is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. Why should the citizens not have the right to speak collectively in this way?

    75. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by shentino · · Score: 1

      Sadly in this day and age you'll both probably be arrested and your assets seized as proceeds of crime regardless of if you are convicted or not.

      See US v $124,700, and general stuff about in rem jurisdictionb eing used to advance civil forfeiture where they arrest the money instead of you.

      In this case they don't even have to prove you committed a crime, all they have to do is prove it was likely the money was dirty and they can seize it because it will cost you more in legal bills than it's worth to get it back.

      See also the mega upload case, and how the feds seized the company's assets without due process simply by asserting in rem jurisdiction on grounds that the charges could be left hanging over the owners indefinitely. Let alone the fact that there's this thing called a statute of limitations.

      So to be blunt, your analogy is naive and does not reflect the harsh reality of a police state in the making.

    76. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      The 'intangible legal entity' is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. In forming the corporation, the citizens do not give up their right to speak individually, so why should they give up the right to speak collectively? If it's right to censor any citizens acting collectively, how can any speaker be safe on any level above the lone blogger or pamphleteer?

    77. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by shentino · · Score: 1

      What if you have three companies A, B, and C, each of which own half of the stock of the other two?

    78. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by shentino · · Score: 1

      Freedom of the press does not require that a single individual is manning the printing machines.

    79. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "By your reasoning, the New York Times Corporation has no right to publish, since it is a collective body. By your reasoning, it publishes only under sufferance of the government of the day, which is free to impose any type of censorship it desires."

      According to the Constitution that is a "freedom", not a "right".

      Do you think the Founders mumbled, or garbled their words? Or do you think there was an actual purpose behind the wording?

      "Contrary to what many leftist legal commentators assert, Citizens United did not invent rights of corporations, but build on a long line of precedent, including First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978. It is an incremental decision, rather than a revolutionary one. "

      I say or even imply that it came out of nowhere. Nevertheless, the general consensus among analysts has been that it was a bad decision. Citizens United was hardly "incremental"... it broke new ground: as Justice Stevens said in his dissent, the majority addressed a question that wasn't even raised, and "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law".

      I would also argue that certain other portions of the dissenting opinion are irrelevant. But that one, at least, is valid.

      I -- and many constitutional scholars -- do not agree that Bellotti was a proper decision either, and Citizens United also contradicted other precedents. So the argument that it simply continued a logical progression is disingenuous.

      And just FYI, I am not a "leftist" or a "liberal", by any stretch of the imagination.

    80. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Some message boards that have an edit button create sometimes quite confusing discussions.

      Easy solution: No edits after a reply or someone has opened a 'reply session'.

    81. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by shentino · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot, realm of anal retentive nerds.

      If you cannot get it right the first time, you deserve the shame of being called on it.

      If you cannot stand the shame, you do not belong here.

      Also, one may observe that grammar faults are often ignored when the main message is still understood.

    82. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that you do not view yourself as 'leftist'. The New York Times views Obama as a 'Center-Right' president. To each his own.

    83. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by shentino · · Score: 1

      You do realize that laws are WRITTEN by lawyers, yes?

      I would opine that it is no different from the guilds of old where the secrets of the trade were jealously protected.

      In this case, they make it complicated so that nobody BUT a lawyer can understand it, and you have to pay the piper in legal fees just to survive in the same dog eat dog world that the lawyers themselves helped to craft in the first place.

    84. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "So if you and I form a corporation to publish a newspaper, we both supply the money and get stock shares, but we decide you'll be the newspaper editor and I'll run the printing presses, or whatever, then it's legal for the government to censor that newspaper, because it's not censoring our individual speech?"

      This is a tired argument. The constitution says that the government shall pass no law abridging the "freedom" of the press. It does not say that a press corporation has a right to "freedom of speech". That may seem like splitting hairs to you, but there is a difference.

      It should also be pointed out that in that time, "the press" largely consisted of small shops run by individuals, not corporations. Corporations did exist, however. It is not as though the founders were unfamiliar with the concept.

      Regardless: the Supreme Court had ruled in past cases that the government could limit political contributions in order to minimize the corrupting influence of money, without stepping on rights of free speech. (See the Wikipedia entry on Citizens United.) To conflate political contributions with a corporate "right" of free speech (the very concept of which was completely unheard of until 1977) was a pretty giant leap.

      But to sum it up: the proscription on government interference with free speech and the press does not equate to a corporate "right" of free speech. That is hardly a slam-dunk, or maybe even a rimshot. It takes some pretty twisty thinking to get "corporate right of free speech" out of the Constitution.

    85. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure that you do not view yourself as 'leftist'. The New York Times views Obama as a 'Center-Right' president. To each his own."

      And this makes me equally sure that you do view me as a leftist, even though that is about the farthest thing from the truth you could have come up with.

      I have gotten pretty used to people accusing me of being "right-wing conservative", even though that is not true either.

      I take issues as they come, and consider them on the merits. I do not take a "left-wing" view or a "right-wing" view. I despise both of those "views" approximately equally.

    86. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      This is what is so wrong with the US. Corporations were originally granted limited liability for investors in return for limited rights.

      Corporations were not "granted" to anybody and certainly not in exchange for anything.

      Corporate organization is done at the state level. Each state has different laws (though they typically have to accept 'foreign' entities, e.g. companies/corps from other states, if they want to do business in their state).

      The federal government did not have some secret corporation power that it decided to bestow on people in exchange for something. States enabled people to form companies and corporations to further commerce. If everybody were personally liable for everything their company did (as opposed to, perhaps, limited/i> liability), nobody would run companies.

      You're missing a lot of history here.

      Originally a Corporate Charter was granted by the King for a very, very, very specific purpose. The East India Company, the 108 "Livery Companies" of London, etc. are examples. This tradition actually predates the existence of any English-speaking government in the Americas, and certainly has nothing to do with modern US states.

      Since these groups were granted charters for specific policy reasons (ie: Richard II wants to regulate merchants in London, and as a feudal lord cannot just tell them what to do), which granted specific political rights (full members of the Worshipful Company of Mercers got to vote for Lord Mayor of London), economic rights (you couldn't sell things in London if you weren't in the company), in exchange for specific concessions (Mercers had to obey the rules of the Charter).

      Early in the days of the Republic this was still the norm. Early canals and railroads, for example, were usually chartered by Acts of their state legislatures. While these were more flexible then early corporations, they were not anywhere near as flexible as modern companies. The Erie Canal Corporation, for example, could not have sold the actual Canal to another corporation and used the money to open a Bank. They could have sold their shares to another group of shareholders, and used the money to open a Bank; but they couldn't have used the Canal company for that purpose. In many ways it was more like a private-public-partnership between the State of New York and the shareholders then a modern corporation.

      Nowadays every state has a bevy of corporate options. You pick one simply by filing a form. Your state government can't force you to do what you said you'd do when you started the company. They don't know whether you follow your by-laws unless somebody sues. It's a lot more flexible.

    87. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by hazah · · Score: 1

      Because there is no such thing as "right to speak collectively". Never existed. As mentioned over and over and over again.

    88. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Your argument would make a lot more sense to me if it was based on the reality of what actually happens in free countries, as opposed to basing it solely on theories Thomas Jefferson believed would apply to free countries decades before any actual "free countries" existed. And in numerous free countries there are strong restrictions on corporate speech and no gulags.

      But I'll humor you because reality does not seem to matter to you.

      First off as a newspaper you were fine before Citizens United. Your Editor had free speech rights. Which you already knew, but you chose to ignore because it made you sound bad.

      Secondly as a corporation you gain numerous rights that you did not have before. Rights to specific forms of contract, special tax treatment, etc. Why in the world would you think that you could GAIN all those rights without GIVING something up in exchange?

    89. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At Slashdot, we have the "preview button" and we like to get it right the first time. Take a second and read your comment before posting.

    90. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      Someone better tell the New York Times...

    91. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      Actually, let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that if you and I write a book together, and publish it together, then the government can censor us because we have no right to speak collectively. Yours is an interesting view, but I don't think it's right.

    92. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      This is what is so wrong with the US. Corporations were originally granted limited liability for investors in return for limited rights. Now that the 14th amendment has granted "human rights" to "property" corporations have both limited liability and human rights giving them in fact more rights than humans. This is why Romney saying "corporations are people my friend" is so dangerous. If corporations want to petition government the executives can spend their considerable income to do it, the employees can spend their merger income to do it and the investors can liquidate some stock and spend their money to do it but the corporation itself petitioning government would be as abhorrent to the founders as tax free churches telling people how to vote.

      On the other hand, the people who own corporations are taxed twice, once on the corporation's income at the corporation level, and then again at a personal level. So it's not all hookers and blow.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    93. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Because business and commerce never existed before the concept of "limited liability" was created, right?

      Non sequitur.

    94. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The entity is not a citizen, but it is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. Why should the citizens not have the right to speak collectively in this way?

      Why should they have any such rights when they have protections (such as "limited liability") that people individually do not have? A right without an accompanying liability or responsibility is pretty much an additional right.

    95. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by gripped · · Score: 1

      In the UK any small ltd company is going to have to provide director guarantees to get loans from a bank. If the business goes under they will come for your house etc. This does not, as far as I am aware, happen in big corporations. Wheres the cutoff. Don't know but I'm not near it.

    96. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The entity is not a citizen, but it is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. Why should the citizens not have the right to speak collectively in this way?

      Why should they have any such rights when they have protections (such as "limited liability") that people individually do not have? A right without an accompanying liability or responsibility is pretty much an additional right.

      Preemptive strike: I know that limited liability is necessary in today's world to conduct business. But that is tangential to the additional power corporations possess over the powers of individuals. In our particular case, post "Citizens United", we are talking about political power.

      People and corporations should have a right to seek wealth. But that does not imply that they have a right to turn wealth into political power. Paul Graham had a good write-up about this particular idea.

    97. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jjo · · Score: 1

      But freedom of speech does?

    98. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Limited liability allows one to not be personally liable for everything their company does.
      Before the concept of limited liability was created, everybody was personally liable for everything their company did.
      If everybody were personally liable for everything their company did, nobody would run companies.
      Therefore, before the concept of limited liability was created, nobody would run companies.

    99. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of an LLP. An LLC can be an individual. LLC/Ps can also be treated as flow-through for tax purposes, which allows the owners' income to be taxed as personal income only, rather than corporate income, then personal income.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    100. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1
      The 14th amendment doesn't grant "Human rights" to "property" ...nor is human rights mentioned in the text, and property is mentioned in another context.

      Corporate personhood is a judicial interpretation of the 14th amendment, which applied the equal protection clause to corporations. Nowhere in the text of the 14th amendment is this stated, and corporate personhood as a doctrine of law only came about 50+ years later.

      Please read the Constitution before making rash claims as to what the Amendments say. The 14th amendment is one of the most important aspects of the Constitution and is what ended slavery in concert with the 13th amendment.

    101. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Hire a competent attorney.

      The choice is simple: If you expect to ever seek VC funding or have an IPO then form a Delaware C Corp. Otherwise form an S Corp in the state where you reside and/or do the majority of your business.

      Also bad advice - here are some landmines you might run over if you incorporate too early [1]. Basically, you should talk to an accountant and attorney to see if it's right for your specific situation, and then keep those folks on the payroll to handle the paperwork and avoid problems specific to maintaining such an entity.

      [1] http://www.youngmoney.com/entrepreneur/should-you-incorporate-not-before-reading-these-arguments/

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    102. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. There is no "corporation itself", the groups of people you named are the only ones who might be able to petition the government. The "corporation itself" is, if you want to point out a physical embodiment... some pieces of paper on file with the state. Those pieces of paper are politically dangerous how?

      The danger is rich people bending the resources of corporations to their political will. However, you can't tell me a person has no right to petition the government if they happen to be rich. I do think the rich are wrecking America in various ways, but I can't tell you how to solve that by limiting the speech of corproations... corporations are a tool just like anything else. They have no inherent purpose or value.

    103. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "Rights", according to our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution, belong to us simply as a consequence of existing as human beings.

      Actually, according to the Declaration of Independence, we have the rights because they were "endowed by their Creator".

      Since the aforementioned Creator doesn't actually exist, it seems to me to follow that we can create legal rights.

    104. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, your failing to understand is obvious here. You say that someone gives someone else $100 to start a business revolving around cars for a stake in that business revolving around cars and then end with it being a front to sell drugs unknown to the investor who invested in a business revolving around cars which you claim he should somehow magically know this concealed behavior existed.

      The shareholder does not have the ability in a lot of situations to check on the private dealings of the companies they invest in. They do not have the ability to direct the acts of the workers, they do not have the ability to do anything but inform the proper authorities if they know of illegal actions. But somehow, he should have known so he is responsible.

      If the shareholder is not involved in running the company, they are not involved beyond their investment if something happens. Even if the shareholder is involved, if whatever happened was not a result of an act they participated in, they are not involved beyond their investment. In the US at least, we do not determine guilt by association or corruption of blood. We do not declare you are guilty of my drug dealing because we know each other or because you loaned me $100 one time. Suggesting that people who have no power to act all the sudden become liable personally for the acts of others because of an association with them is scary to say the least, but it goes against every grain of the concept of justice and due process as practiced in the US.

    105. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by rioki · · Score: 1

      Ok here is a question for you: Who is one of the biggest stockholders of Apple? Microsoft. Not Bill Gates, Microsoft. Sure the buy was probably strongly influenced by Bill Gates and technically it was done with some of "his money" (as he is a majority owner), but the actual stock is held by the cooperation.

    106. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by rioki · · Score: 1

      A thought just occurred to me. How can "The New York Times" have an opinion that can be censored? Each article in the Times is written by a journalist (a natural person) and approved by an editor (a natural person). If you take all the natural persons out, all you have is a white paper. Each individual that works at the Times has a right to free speech and some of this speech is printed on dead trees.

      The reasoning behind this, is that a collective never had a right to speech, simply by virtue that it can't speak. Even if a collective finds a consensus and the actual speech is done by one person. (How can change her mind in the last minute.)

    107. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by rioki · · Score: 1

      I just read the details of the Citizens United case. Still think the idea that groups of people don't have a voice, only the individuals in it is right; nevertheless I think the decision was wrong. Speech should never be limited.

    108. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Lando · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have to have anything to make incorporation a good idea. Debts from the business will follow you no matter what you do if you don't incorporate. Get sued, spend the rest of your life paying. Make a mistake, spend the rest of your life paying. et cetra The fact of the matter is that incorporating is the cheapest form of legal protection you can buy. Anyone running a business without it is a fool and likely to get burned unless they get very lucky. I

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    109. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Citizens United was about the government telling a political media corporation that they weren't allowed to air a movie about a politician within 30 days of an election. During the oral argument, the government said they could use the law to ban books if the book mentioned a politician.

      It may be a "tired" argument to you that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.", but that doesn't make it an incorrect argument. The First Amendment was written in "terms of speech, not speakers", to continue quoting the actual USSC decision.

      You seem to have a common misunderstanding. The "press" refers to using technology for speech, it's not referring to an occupation or a specific industry. Everyone has freedom of speech and of the press. It's not something that refers to journalists by trade. That's a modern misunderstanding because of how language has changed to call journalists "the press". See this reprinted law review article.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
      It seems pretty obvious that a law prohibiting people, no matter how they're organized, from showing a political movie within 30 days of an election _abridges_ their freedom.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    110. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      From my experience, an LLC is used for partnerships.

      In your experience as a ... what... auto mechanic? That would explain why you have never heard of a single-member LLC.

      In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's.

      [citation needed]

      Corporations are a way to shield owners (stock holders) from liability.

      This doesn't work as well as some people might wish it did. If your corporation doesn't maintain itself properly and carry adequate insurance, a judge will wipe his ass with your articles of incorporation.

      This is not legal advice. This is not tax advice. If you want legal/tax advice, hire someone to look at your entire situation. For most freelance IT professionals, you should be looking at either a single-member LLC or an S-Corporation. The main differences for you, as a practical matter: a single-member LLC won't need to file its own tax return (it's a form on your personal return) and all profits will be treated as income to the owner. An S-corp will require its own corporate tax return*, and you do not need to take all profits as income if it isn't to your advantage (you do, however, need to pay yourself a reasonable salary if you're going to take some profit as a distribution since you'll be avoiding some tax by doing this).

      Another thing to consider is which state to incorporate in. For most people, that will be their state of residence. But talk to an attorney who is familiar with this topic to see if it would be advantageous to you to incorporate in Delaware or Nevada or something.

      *The S-Corp return is pretty simple. My recommendation is to have a CPA get you set up with your accounting software, teach you basic bookkeeping, and prepare your 1120S for you for the first 1-3 years. After you have a few returns that you can use for reference, I'd go ahead and switch to TurboTax. It's a straightforward return.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    111. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by hazah · · Score: 1

      This is called "Freedom of the Press"

    112. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by hazah · · Score: 1

      "Freedom of the Press". This is not the "Right to Free Speach".

    113. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by hazah · · Score: 1

      Like all the other comments in regards to this issue above. The concept is called "Freedom of the Press". It's not an invocation of the "Right to Free Speech".

    114. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      If you're just starting out, don't waste your time and money incorporating. Get a good professional liability policy, track all of your business expenses (expensify is good for this), get a separate bank account, and go develop your mobile apps. You'll get a 1099 every year. Don't forget to deduct your business expenses from your 1099 income.

      When to incorporate?
      1. If you have a potential client who will only deal with a corporation and/or you want to look more "established".
      2. You are hiring employees
      3. You are selling physical goods
      4. You take on a partner
      5. Your profits exceed $100k/yr or so. (look into getting a solo 401k for interesting tax deferral options)

      Why wait to incorporate?
      1. Incorporating costs you money, and will probably not provide you any benefit when you're first starting out.
      2. Incorporating and takes your time (filing, bookkeeping, record-keeping, tax filing, etc.) When you are a business owner, anything that takes your time that isn't making you money is the enemy, and that is not hyperbole. NEVER voluntarily do something that isn't making you money. Such is the life of a business owner.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    115. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by hazah · · Score: 1

      Group's cannot speak. At least not as entities (a group has no physical orifice). Individuals within groups can. Their rights to Free Speeh are already protected. At least in theory. Other individuals can support the speaking individuals. That right is protected, at least in theory. Other individuals may leave the group instead. That right is protected (in theory). The group, as an entity needs none of those protections for itself.

      If an individual within the group goes against its grain (i. e. does not represents the common will of the many individuals of the group) the recourse generally should come from within the group. It is unnecessary for the law to protect the group. The law must apply to the responsible individual, singled out from within the group, ignoring the group entierly. This means that when a big corporation yields to shareholders and engages in illigal activity, the CEO (and his collegues) at the top that allowed it to happen is responsible, he knowingly sacrificed the reputation of his group. The individual shareholders that push for this are responsible as conspirators. If the other individuals of the group are rational, they will rid themselves of these individuals, thus preserving the integrity of the group. It should be the responsibility of these groups to keep themselves in check internally. No law should cater to sick and diseased business systems. Having these laws in place prevents this from naturally occuring as it removes all motive to accept responsibility for actions performed.

      As far as I'm concerned, the law should be limited to specifying special priviliged actions for individuals to be performed under the name of the group. Should an individual step outside of the perscribed privileges, that person is responsible. The law should also dictate the public responsibilities of the group that it is obligated to fullfil for having such privileges granted.

      I believe this is what the original intent of a corporation as an entity was.

      Stepping outside of that framework we get the bizzare situation that we have on our hands. The distinction between the group and the individuals it is composed of should not even exist outside the scope of the group's privileges and responsibilites. Responsibility for actions outside of that scope should be attributed to the individuals which perform them. This, of course, implies that individuals within the group who had no knowledge, or actively tried to prevent the action, are not responsible and should not suffer retribution.

      All this IMHO

    116. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by hazah · · Score: 1

      "Freedom of the Press". This is not the "Right to Free Speach".

      *Speech

    117. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Usually the cutoff is where the companies assets + shareholder equity > Liability.
      In cases if you sell the company you can pay off your debts.

      However if the individual even under a corporation put his home as collateral he will loose it. However if he didn't and say got sued for everything, he would loose his home, the company would just go out of business.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    118. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by swalve · · Score: 1

      It is about credit risk. A newly formed corporation has no credit history, and is thus an unknown risk. Therefore, a bank will require some kind of collateral or co-sign. Once a corporation, large or small, builds up a credit history, they may be able to leverage that to get credit on their own.

    119. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I should add that protection from investors is not absolute. If an investor thinks that you defrauded them, they can still sue you personally.

      Anybody can always sue you personally. They won't necessarily win, but will generally cost you legal fees just to address it, even if it's spurious. (I don't disagree with you, in case it's unclear. Also, IANAL.)

    120. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      IANAL, however, here in Oregon, at least, LLC stands for "Limited Liability Company", not "Corporation" (a common misconception, BTW). This is in some small way different from an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership). I have interests in both types of organization, but honestly let the lawyers determine what the best form of organization to create is/was. Also, corporations have two different forms, a "C-corp", which is evidently designed for large, publicly traded companies, and an "S-corp", which is a way for individuals or small companies to incorporate without all the rules (board meetings, recorded minutes, etc.) of the C-corp. My understanding is that, in the case of S-corps, income is treated as a straight pass-through to the shareholders' personal income, and the corporation itself pays no taxes directly. This is similar to an LLC and LLP. Having said all this, I'd better declare that IANATA (Tax Accountant), either.

      As an owner of an LLC, even if I had moved to an S-Corp I would have still had to do the board meetings, recorded minutes, etc. In fact, those things help you when it comes to a lawsuit. Not doing those things can make it easier for the other litigant to pierce the corporate veil. The difference is in the distributions, tax forms, and owner relationships.

      As always, consult your lawyer first, and IANAL.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    121. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      I believe you're confusing LLC's with LLP's. LLC's are general purpose vehicles for just this sort of scenarios. LLP's are designed for the unique constraints of Architechture, Law, Medical and similar **licensed** professions; and as such, limit who can form. Straight "partnerships" on the other hand (meaning not LLP) can be formed without any paperwork at all, by simple agreeing to try to sell/make stuff with another person.

      An LLP can be used anywhere where a group of people form a partnership for a business. IANAL, but it's Limited Liability Partnership, not Limited Liability Profession.

      An LLP means you're still considered a partnership with some protection from each other, and the partners therefore have legal liability and their assets are at risk for the company.
      An LLC means it's considered a corporate entity and the owners have a limited liability as far as their role is concerned with the governance of the corporate entity; but none of their assets are at stake.

      I formed an LLC simply so that my house and cars would not be at stake if someone sued me, namely with the patent situation in software. So my wife and kid will still have money, transportation, and a house.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    122. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      As AC above points out, you have to be careful with your LLC. In additional to no commingling assets, you have to be aware of the possibility that single-owner LLCs can be treated as Sole Proprietorships for purposes of litigation. If you are being sued and the judge decides that your LLC is in fact an SP, you have no liability protection at all. Having at least one other contributing partner -- preferably not a spouse -- should keep that from biting you.

      IANAL, but it's a matter of whether or not you try to make the LLC behave like an LLC - that is, meeting minutes, separate of assets, etc.

      I have to hold meetings with minutes, a separate bank account, separate computers, etc. It still runs out of my house (not enough money to do otherwise yet), but there is a very clear line between the business and everything else - much to the chagrin of my wife.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    123. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      The computer one seems funny to me, as an example with corporate cars there's a standard personal use line for payroll taxes (including for an S-corp), I'd assume you'd just have to declare that a certain percentage of the PC use was personal and pay payroll taxes on that fraction of the depreciation schedule.

      Only if you want to have that personal computer taken for e-Discovery, sold off as an asset to cover debt, etc.

      Having separate assets - including computers - is very very good, and really helps limit what others can get from you, where they can look during a legal situation, etc. IANAL, but I am an LLC owner.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    124. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2

      Hire a competent attorney.

      NO! This is terrible advice. The attorney will cost you thousands of $ and steer you toward the most expensive option. This just isn't that complicated.

      The choice is simple: If you expect to ever seek VC funding or have an IPO then form a Delaware C Corp. Otherwise form an S Corp in the state where you reside and/or do the majority of your business. There are plenty of websites where you can do this online for a few hundred bucks. I use www.businessfilings.com for all my domestic corporations, but there are probably other sites just as good.

      This is standard practice stuff for a lawyer, and any good law firm will be able to quote a flat price for setting up the business. I paid $500 for the lawyer, $110 for state filing fees, and $90 for the corporate book - for $700 total and following the practices required of an LLC I got an LLC in South Carolina. Different kinds of companies will require different filings, etc; so YMMV, but doing so through a good lawyer is the best thing you can do. And it will be well worth it in the long run, especially if you are doing it in anticipation of protecting yourself from lawsuits, etc. (e.g. Lodsys style).

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    125. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      That is an incorrect assumption. Being a shareholder does indemnify you from most lawsuits, but the board of directors can be personally liable as well as the corporate officers. If you are a small business as an s-corp, you will still be personally on the hook for most things. The only real protection that incorporation offers is liability from your investors. Investors have little to no recourse if you lose all their money. You are not shielded from other forms of liability, such as personal injury or negligence. You can still be sued directly along with the corporation you own, since you would be the presiding officer and CEO. Protection from creditors is mixed. While you may be protected from personal action if you stiff a supplier, the bank may require you to be personally responsible for any loan to your company as a condition of credit.

      You should confer with an attorney before incorporating any business. The few hundred dollars in consultation fee is worth doing it right.

      IANAL, but so far as I am aware I am only liable up to what I have invested in my LLC. States may differ, consult a lawyer.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    126. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by afidel · · Score: 1

      You've got the argument backwards, the OP said he was told never to use a business asset for personal use, if it's a business asset then of course it can be seized for actions against the corporation. I would agree to not use personal assets for business purposes unless you're willing to lose them (though I wonder how that works if you declare a portion of your personal residence as an office, they obviously can't seize your entire house to cover the corporate debt, perhaps it's just like the situation with a landlord, you're essentially leasing the space to the corporation so it's not an asset).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    127. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      You've got the argument backwards, the OP said he was told never to use a business asset for personal use, if it's a business asset then of course it can be seized for actions against the corporation. I would agree to not use personal assets for business purposes unless you're willing to lose them

      You just restated what I said. The parent was arguing that computers could be mixed use, where I stated that they shouldn't.

      (though I wonder how that works if you declare a portion of your personal residence as an office, they obviously can't seize your entire house to cover the corporate debt, perhaps it's just like the situation with a landlord, you're essentially leasing the space to the corporation so it's not an asset).

      IANAL, but they would be able to take the whole house and sell it to cover the debt. At best, you may get a proportional amount back - that is, if 25% of the house is used for the company they might take 25% of the sale price (after fees are taken out) and return the other 75%, but more likely than not, they'll just take up to the amount owed.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    128. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by nobaloney · · Score: 1

      Why no edit button Slashdot? that should be you can NOT sue Bill Gates....

      Actually you can. The likelihood you'd win is so close to zero as to be statistically insignifcant (not leastly because of how much legal might he could use against you), but you can sue him.

      You can sue anyone.

    129. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's not true at all. You can sue Bill Gates and you can even sue Steve Jobs even though he's dead and has nothing to do with Microsoft. What you meant to say is that the suit against those individuals will be dropped upon examination because they have no liability.

    130. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "It may be a "tired" argument to you that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.", but that doesn't make it an incorrect argument."

      That wasn't the argument that I called tired.

      "You seem to have a common misunderstanding. The "press" refers to using technology for speech, it's not referring to an occupation or a specific industry. Everyone has freedom of speech and of the press."

      It's not my misunderstanding, it's yours. I am well aware of this. Our differences here are over what "everyone" means.

      "It seems pretty obvious that a law prohibiting people, no matter how they're organized ..."

      Corporations are not PEOPLE. If THE PEOPLE who make up a corporation want to get together and make a political statement, let them. That is NOT the same thing as a political statement made BY A CORPORATION, at the whim of its leadership.

      It is your failure to see the difference that is the basis of this whole argument.

    131. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "It may be a "tired" argument to you that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.", but that doesn't make it an incorrect argument."

      That wasn't the argument that I was calling tired.

      "You seem to have a common misunderstanding. The "press" refers to using technology for speech, it's not referring to an occupation or a specific industry. Everyone has freedom of speech and of the press."

      It isn't my misunderstanding, it's yours. I am well aware of this. Our difference lies in what is meant by "everyone". My opinion -- and consensus legal opinion until 1977 (and which I say should still hold) -- is that it is limited to actual human beings.

      "It seems pretty obvious that a law prohibiting people, no matter how they're organized ..."

      But the key word here is PEOPLE. Corporations are NOT "people". Corporations are government-created entities. They were given the privilege of acting as people for capital investment purposes.

      If the people who make up a corporation want to get together and make a political statement, clearly they have the right to do so. But that is not the same as a political statement made by a corporation, at the whim of its leadership. In the latter case, it is (A) "speech" made by an additional entity, entirely separate from the people who work for the corporation, and (B) not necessarily representative [I would guess seldom representative] of the people who work for the corporation.

      It is your apparent failure to realize that you are talking about a fictional "person" that does not represent the real people of the organization, that is the essence of our argument here.

    132. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      I've never said that corporations are people. As stated by the USSC decision, they're (among other things) associations of citizens.

      Corporations are no more people than a hammer is a person. Corporations are organizational tools created (yes, under governing laws) by people for various purposes.

      In the Citizens United case, as in the NY Times, ACLU, etc... the corporation is formed for the purpose of publishing speech. It's not a "whim".

      When a nail is driven by a hammer, it's not the hammer doing it. It's the person using the hammer. The hammer is just a tool for focusing force at the point of impact.

      What you're saying is similar in logic to "We can ban hammers from being used to hit nails without abridging the right of people to hit nails." That's ridiculous. It's people that use hammers to hit nails and it's people that use corporations to, among other things, speak and publish freely. Prohibiting those people from using corporations to organize those actions abridges those people's speech.

      Abridging the people's right to use a tool for free speech is restricting their right to free speech. If there is a compelling state interest with no other solution, like say, preventing people from blowing out your eardrums with a bullhorn, then the government can legally restrict the tool being used the minimal amount to prevent that. If there isn't, like, someone's speech is simply more effective, then the USSC won't let the government restrict it.

      The real argument here is that some people want to restrict speech that uses a corporation because they see that as an effective way to spread ideas they disagree with. Preventing effectiveness of speech isn't a legitimate state interest, even if the people who happen to control the government at the time don't agree with that speech.

      I think people should stop trying to ban speech and stop trying to ban support from other people for political ideas and politicians and instead compete in the marketplace for ideas by spreading their own ideas. The answer to speech you disagree with is more speech of your own, not banning other people's speech under the excuse they're using a corporation to organize it.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    133. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "As stated by the USSC decision, they're (among other things) associations of citizens."

      You still don't get it (and I am about to give up trying to explain; you seem a bit thick-headed in this respect).

      In reality, it's false. Opinions or political speech expressed BY a corporation have no relationship to the opinions of the people who WORK FOR (make up) that corporation. And don't give me that crap about it expressing the opinions of stockholders rather than the workers. It's still beside the point. It still constitutes a SEPARATE ENTITY -- separate from the people -- who make up that corporation. So it's an EXTRA entity, over and above the actual people, who still have their own rights of speech anyway.

      You can't base it on the rights of the people, because it's EXTRA to those people. Those people still retain their original rights. You are making up an EXTRA entity ("extra" in both senses of "in addition" and "outside") that did not exist before.

      And if you don't get that point by now, you never will. I have explained it a couple of different ways now, and if you still don't understand I have no reason to continue this exchange.

    134. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Clearly, what you're saying is at least partially false. Reporters and editors who work at the NY Times corporation express their own opinions all the time. The people who worked for Citizens United obviously were expressing their own opinions in the movie they made.

      Still, that's not the point at all. People who work for a corporation are employed to do their job. Sometimes that job involves expressing their opinions and sometimes that job requires NOT expressing their opinions.

      I've been pretty clear and consistent that what I'm talking about are the people who organize and own the corporation. For example, we don't talk about the guy who is hired to paste up a billboard as being the one exercising his first amendment rights, we talk about the people who paid for the billboard to be printed and put up. It's not the guy who runs the printing press whose rights are infringed when the owner of a paper is told he isn't allowed to print what he wants about a candidate. It's not the broadcast engineer whose rights are infringed when a company created for the express purpose of producing a political movie is told they'll be fined if they broadcast it within 30 days of an election. It's not their purposes which are being frustrated, it's obviously the purpose of the owners being frustrated.

      A corporation is a tool for the owners to accomplish a particular purpose. Free speech may be incidental to that purpose, but it also may be directly related to that purpose. I'm sorry that you limit people's speech and publishing such that you prefer to ban their use of a corporation to exercise it, but to me that's just thugs in government trying to use their power to shut people up they either disagree with or they don't control, or both.

      "Campaign finance" laws are generally about one thing, doing what Congress thinks will help keep them in office and give them more control and an advantage in elections. That's not necessarily why regular people push them, but that's why Congress and President's pass them.

      Some people react to free speech they don't approve of by looking for some excuse for the government to stop it using some technicality they think might pass muster in the USSC. Well, in this particular case the USSC finally did the right thing and protected people's rights to publish their political ideas using a corporation.

      Just because people create a separate legal entity for the purpose of exercising their rights doesn't mean "Hey, we gotcha, we found a way to protect politicians from your speech!" is going to fly. It's a B.S. argument designed to use an excuse to limit people's speech. Well, guess what, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting ..." and there's no exception in there for corporations or for people working through a corporation, or for FCC broadcast licensees. It just says "... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Saying you can't broadcast a political movie within 30 days of an election because it's political and might influence the election... that's EXACTLY what the first amendment is supposed to protect against. As it turns out, five Justices of the USSC agree with that.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    135. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Reporters and editors who work at the NY Times corporation express their own opinions all the time."

      Talk about straw-man! It should have been pretty clear to you that this is not the kind of activity to which I was referring.

      "Still, that's not the point at all. People who work for a corporation are employed to do their job. Sometimes that job involves expressing their opinions and sometimes that job requires NOT expressing their opinions."

      Yes, it *IS* the point. You are in fact illustrating its presence yourself: the opinions of THE PEOPLE can be (and often are) different from the "opinions" expressed by "corporate speech". Far from refuting me, you have acknowledged and proven my point.

      "Campaign finance" laws are generally about one thing, doing what Congress thinks will help keep them in office and give them more control and an advantage in elections. That's not necessarily why regular people push them, but that's why Congress and President's pass them.

      Well, no shit, Sherlock. But that's completely beside the point. I was talking about the "what", not about the "why" it has been allowed.

    136. Re:As soon as you have anything to take by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Corporations exist to serve their founder's and shareholder's purposes. Those purposes is what "corporate speech" is for. You seem to have a blind spot where you think corporations magically appear and are then controlled by their employees for some sinister motive.

      The opinions expressed by corporate speech, in the myriad examples I've given over and over again, completely unrefuted by you and exactly on point to the USSC case in question, are exercising the free speech rights of the people who created the corporation for the purpose of expressing those ideas.

      You still haven't made any sort of argument at all against my main point, that the constitution says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. Not even that of people who form and own corporations. Not even if those people use the corporate form to publish things. Certainly not if the only reason for the laws abridging their freedom is to protect incumbent politicians.

      Until you address that, all you're left with is continuing to argue that you personally think that it's ok to deny the rights of people who form corporations on a proposed technicality that the USSC has ruled is incorrect. Not much ground to stand on there.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  2. Probably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If for no other reason, incorporating (S-Corp or LLC) gives you some legal separation between your personal and work related finances. Buy an general liability insurance policy (~$250/yr) and you're good to go.

  3. Probably Not Worth It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Two main reasons to incorporate are liability and taxes. Liability probably isn't a big problem for you. Taxes come down to how much for how much. There are costs associated with incorporating, including your time, separate bank account, state and federal filings, etc. If you incorporate, do it because the tax savings clearly outweigh the costs.

    Also, don't bother with a corporation (S or C). If you do this form an LLC. There are many advantages which you can google if you are really interested.

    1. Re:Probably Not Worth It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liability being not a big problem? How so? Mobile app development, right?

      Say some dumbass is using your mobile app while driving. He crashes into a Bently at 65 mph and the Bently crashes into a BMW that was in front of it, causing serious injury to the driver of the Bently and minor injury to the driver of the BMW. That dumbass who crashed into them then sues you for your app causing the accident. All your assets are now at risk (at least in the US).

      Sure the dumbass probably won't win, but if you're an LLC, the LLC and the LLC's assets are now at risk, while your car, your house, and your personal bank account are not at risk. Incorporating as an LLC is not prohibitively expensive, and if you're making any sort of recommendation that could cause damage to anyone or lead to a lawsuit if misinterpreted, you should really be under the LLC or S/C corp veil.

    2. Re:Probably Not Worth It by qwijibo · · Score: 2

      I did consulting for several years as a single member LLC. The paperwork/cost of getting setup was negligible and made contracting through various companies easy. There's a lot of contract gigs available, and you can get a larger percentage of the rate if you do them as 1099 instead of W2 contracts. That becomes important if any of the part time gigs end up becoming your primary source of income.

      http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Single-Member-Limited-Liability-Companies

    3. Re:Probably Not Worth It by samkass · · Score: 1

      Two main reasons to incorporate are liability and taxes. Liability probably isn't a big problem for you. Taxes come down to how much for how much. There are costs associated with incorporating, including your time, separate bank account, state and federal filings, etc. If you incorporate, do it because the tax savings clearly outweigh the costs.

      Also, don't bother with a corporation (S or C). If you do this form an LLC. There are many advantages which you can google if you are really interested.

      Not bad advice, but the LLC vs. S-Corp decision partly depends on the state you're in. An LLC in New Jersey is $50/year and you can set it up online on a Sunday in an hour. In New York it requires publishing notices and can cost hundreds or more. Every state has their own LLC rules. The only Federal filing is a one-time EIN request. Otherwise it's usually just pass-through (disregarded entity) taxes that appear on your personal tax return each year for LLC.

      Once you have it, a separate bank account is actually really nice. Your taxes at the end of the year get a lot easier if all your income and costs are in a completely separate statement. Most banks can put a business and personal account on the same online page so it's easy to manage.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:Probably Not Worth It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you do this, check the state regulations. There can be hidden costs for an LLC, ranging from yearly fees to one-time "publication fees" of up to $2000.

    5. Re:Probably Not Worth It by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Whether your business is formed as an LLC or you are a sole proprietor shouldn't make a difference as to the issuance of a 1099 vs W2. Obviously, an LLC would receive a 1099, but unless your only client is the firm you are contracting with, then so should a bona-fide sole proprietor.

    6. Re:Probably Not Worth It by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Or pick a far more likely example: a patent troll thinks your mobile app infringes on their patent and sues. The RIAA/MPAA decides that your app is helping people pirate stuff and they sue you.

    7. Re:Probably Not Worth It by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

      Two main reasons to incorporate are liability and taxes.

      This is correct but these are partly two different issues. If you set up an LLC you can elect to have it taxed as an S or a C corporation when you set it up. Which one you would want would depend heavily on your circumstances. Generally an LLC is more favorable now than either an S or C corp for this fexibility and ease of setting it up and reduced record keeping requirements, but LLC requirements and benefits vary quite a bit from state to state. Yes, you can form and LLC anywhere, Delaware for example for it's more lax and corporate friendly laws etc, but in some cases your home state's laws would determine if you got any benefit out of it.

      To the original poster, basically you should consider and LLC or corporation when your business is successful enough to make it worth it. In other words when it has some substantial income and or assets that you'd like to protect, and the costs and hassle are made up for by the liability protection, etc. As others have noted it's not full liability protection, but it does protect you from certain things that can make it worth it, even as a sole proprietor. It can make your business more attractive to lend money to, more salable, etc.

    8. Re:Probably Not Worth It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An S-Corp may not actually give you limited liability. It is possible for someone to claim that your S-Corp is solely to give you limited liability and get it set aside. To be sure of limited liability in a corporation, you need to have multiple shareholders and elect a board of directors. You also need to make your decisions through the board of directors (or at least under authorization from the board).

      You may or may not be able to set up an LLC as a sole proprietorship. That too is going to differ state by state.

    9. Re:Probably Not Worth It by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I was given the rundown of how to do this by an old hat engineer that has been incorporated for a while.

      You charge a decent rate as a corporation. You then pay yourself a decent wage (about what other engineers would make). Everything else you pay as a corporation. But with one of them (I can't remember S or C) you get to roll over losses. So say 3 years in a row you don't make a profit (read, you don't do any jobs). You take everything you lost that year and roll it into a year you did make money.

      And then everything is a tax write off. 10Mb internet to the house: Business expense. New 27" monitors to do your work, business expense.

      Second the IRS pretty much leaves S/C-corps alone. He once got a letter from the IRS and all he sent back was "I'll let you talk to my lawyers/accountants" (a personal friend of his) and he never heard about the matter again.

  4. As soon as possible .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It limits your personal liability. If you are doing consulting, there is always the possibility that you will err and have someone come after you. Better for them to come after your business than yourself personally and possibly lose your home and other belongings. (They still can but it does make it harder.) It is cheap and easy to incorporate and I can't think of many downsides other than trying to save the $50....

    1. Re:As soon as possible .... by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      Its costs more than the $50 filing fees, you have the paper work and filings for the organization. If you don't do those your corp or LLC will be invalidated and they'll come after you anyway.

      As an individual you probably don't want incorporation, you likely want a Limited Liability Company. (LLC) Corporations have a lot of overhead that LLCs don't. However once you start making 6 figures a Corp starts making more sense

      This all depends what state you're in. Talk with several accountants and tax attorneys to find out what your options are. They'll likely consult for free. And do go through a person. Don't use one of the "Corporation In A Minute" web sites. It's not that they're a scam, it's that they don't prepare you with the information you need to run your new business entity properly. Not that it's complex, hard, or time consuming but this is what outside experts are for. If you're going to take steps to protect yourself do it right. You wouldn't buy a security system and then fail to install it correctly, right?

      But yes, as soon as possible.

    2. Re:As soon as possible .... by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      It limits your personal liability. If you are doing consulting, there is always the possibility that you will err and have someone come after you. Better for them to come after your business than yourself personally and possibly lose your home and other belongings. (They still can but it does make it harder.) It is cheap and easy to incorporate and I can't think of many downsides other than trying to save the $50....

      It's not just $50 in some states. Here in Mass you have to pay $500 and also file some paperwork every year, even just for an LLC.

    3. Re:As soon as possible .... by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      Except that having a corporation doesn't protect you in this case. Corporations are about separating your liability from the actions of other people, not from your own actions.

      What you need in this case is general liability insurance, not a corporation.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  5. good times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I incorporated when I decided that I wanted to file small business tax documents, claiming my expenses to and from the workplace (and my expenses included everything from clothing to gas).

    Check out Schedule C - filing as a sole proprietorship:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_forms#1040
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf

  6. Depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It really does depend. It depends on multiple factors. These include: where you are (and thus the legal situation); how much money you are thinking you will make; how much tax you'll have to pay on that money as an individual as compared to a corporation; whether you need the limited liability that incorporation offers; etc.

    Maybe a good idea to talk to a lawyer if you aren't sure. Also, there is probably a lot of information on the web for where you are. Maybe also talk to your local chamber of commerce?

    Personally, as an Australian I wouldn't bother incorporating until the amount of income from my free lancing work reached enough that it would be worthwhile tax-wise to incorporate. Otherwise everything is just easier as a sole propriator. In Australia you also have to worry about GST, my advice would be to not register until you have to (it's just easier). Though you will get people who are stupid and think that you have to ask for GST, you don't if you're not registered. Just make a note on the invoice that the amount does not include GST.

    m m

  7. Say what you mean... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    ...by doing some consulting work (read mobile app development)

    If that's what you mean whay not just say it?

    ...by doing some mobile app development

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Say what you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's inferring that it is not related to his regular employment. No need to be pedantic.

    2. Re:Say what you mean... by onkelonkel · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's _implying_ that it is not related to his regular employment. Need to be pedantic.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    3. Re:Say what you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. "Not related to his regular employment" is called "freelancing" or "development on the side." Consulting is a whole different ball game and pretending to be something you're not doesn't earn you much respect.

      2. In the context of the question, it's doubly important to be honest about the type of work. Makes a big difference in terms of taxes (and liability in some countries), what you can and can't deduct, who you can employ, etc.

    4. Re:Say what you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make himself feel more important. He's not a contract programmer, he's a Consultant!

  8. Taxes by headhot · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm an S-corp and there are huge benefits in tax write offs compared to filing as a 1099, but filing as an S-corp sucks, an you will need an accountant. I would go to an S-corp as soon as you think you are making enough to pay and accountant about $1k a year or are buying or spending good money on anything that could be considered work related, i.e. computers, cell phones, car expenses.
    You may just want to consult an accountant on the decision as they can tell you the exact benefits after looking at your situation.

    1. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      S corp you have to pay yourself a salary, it's not as good as it looks on the surface. Just do an LLC, get general liability and you're good.

      And you don't need an accountant to do an S Corp either. All the tax packages can do a 1120S for you pretty easily. However, you don't "start" as an S-Corp, you start as a C-Corp and have to file an S-Corp election with the IRS.

      Do you really know anything you're trying to comment about OP?

    2. Re:Taxes by DJ+Jones · · Score: 4, Informative

      Filing as an LLC is much easier depending on what US state you are in. LLC's were designed for this. I own several of them. I recommend filing in Delaware. It's very easy and you get charged a flat tax of $250 a year. If you do business in your own state you still have to pay state tax there but for me, I run an internet business and have no office or servers in my own state so one could argue I only need to pay taxes in Delaware.

      There are two major benefits to incorporating as I see it, 1) it allows you to write off expenses against your earnings on your taxes 2) it allows you to protect your personal assets. Now, you could just file your taxes as a DBA with a schedule C without incorporating which would allow you to write off expenses without the corporation but without a corporation, if you get sued, they could come after your house, your car, your savings accounts. It's almost an insurance policy. That and it gives you a little more legitimacy with the IRS and other businesses.

      To answer the original post: if you are making enough money to pay $250 a year in tax for a corporation, you should probably file for incorporation.

    3. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can write off cell phones, car expenses, etc as a 1099 too. The real advantage of a corp is that you pay yourself a salary, which is taxed at one rate with 7.5% also paid by the corp - but the rest of the money is taxed at the corp tax rate, which gives you a real break. And don't fret an accountant - you may spend some $'s but in the end a good accountant will save you much more.

    4. Re:Taxes by headhot · · Score: 2

      A salary is not the only way to take income in as an S-Corp. Yes, you do have to take a salary, and pay income and FICA, but you can also take profit distributions that don't have FICA. You can also pay your salary once a year to reduce the paperwork.

      But compared to a 1099 there are way more filings. Federal, State, and Local for personal and business, for taxes, unemployment, FICA. Most are quarterly. So yea, I do know what I'm talking about.

      Your right, you don't need an accountant, but if you screw up a filling your going to be dealing with the tax problems forever.

    5. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Registering as an LLC in Colorado only required $50 and 10 minutes on the Secretary of State's website. Very easy to do. I'm not sure of the tax benefits of S-Corp over LLC.

    6. Re:Taxes by Aquitaine · · Score: 1

      +1 for an LLC in DE. I am originally from DE so set up our company there but now live in elsewhere and still keep my DE LLC.

      DE is just very easy to do business with. They're responsive and they're inexpensive. If your needs are simple then you don't need to go the extra step of being an S-Corporation (this may not be advisable for other reasons; that's a decision that you should have an accountant and/or a tax lawyer for). But your taxes won't change - you'll still do personal income taxes and a schedule C as an LLC. No separate corporate taxes or corporate tax rate, but the 'down side' is that every dollar you make is taxed as your personal income. For a small business this is usually a fair trade off as you want to be able to put money in and take money out very easily.

    7. Re:Taxes by wiwa · · Score: 2

      I'm an S-corp

      I know corporations have legal personhood, but I never expected to see one posting to Slashdot in person!

    8. Re:Taxes by captaindomon · · Score: 2

      Make sure you look carefully at how you are going to move money from your customers through your corporation to yourself, or you will really quickly understand what "double taxation" means, and it ain't pretty. Get a really good CPA who specializes in taxes if you're going to start a corp or any kind of business.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    9. Re:Taxes by Stiletto · · Score: 2

      I run an internet business and have no office or servers in my own state so one could argue I only need to pay taxes in Delaware.

      Be careful with this. Some states are getting very aggressive in locating companies that need to register as a foreign LLC. If your LLC is in Delaware, but you and your partner(s) live in California, write code while sitting in your California apartments, use Internet service to California addresses for business, well, the state of California may consider you to be doing business in California and require their foreign corporation registration/fee.

    10. Re:Taxes by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      That's what the 'S' stands for.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    11. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are a person who happens to own a S corp.

      BIG DIFFERENCE!

    12. Re:Taxes by guttentag · · Score: 2

      if you are making enough money to pay $250 a year in tax for a corporation, you should probably file for incorporation.

      For those in California, LLCs pay a $70 fee for the paperwork and $800 minimum in annual taxes to the state.

    13. Re:Taxes by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

      However, the benefit of the S-Corp is that after you pay all employees a modest Salary (including the owner) You can pay out profits as capital gains to the share holders. (S-Corps have shares that can be bought/sold; but I assume most people on Slashdot will just be the sole owner of all their company shares.) The capital gains are then taxed at 15% which is usually much lower than your normal income tax bracket.

      Of course due to various laws you want to talk to an accountant about this. Each state is different, and the IRS will not be happy with you (i.e. audit, possible fine) if it deems that you did not pay yourself an appropriate salary.

      It depends on the various laws in your state, and your particular situations, but the S-Corp starts making more sense then the LLC when you have revenues of $50,000-75,000. The more money your company is making the better deal the S-Corp becomes. As mentioned by an earlier post, you will need an accountant with the S-Corp, and the cost savings of the S-corp will need to outweigh the extra fees in managing the corporation. An S-Corp is usually more expensive in the cost of filing fees as well.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    14. Re:Taxes by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >However, the benefit of the S-Corp is that after you pay all employees a modest Salary (including the owner) You can pay out profits as capital gains to the share holders. (S-Corps have shares that can be bought/sold; but I assume most people on Slashdot will just be the sole owner of all their company shares.) The capital gains are then taxed at 15% which is usually much lower than your normal income tax bracket.

      No, S-Corps are pass-through entities, which means that any profits in them at the end of the fiscal year flow through to the owners' personal taxes. They don't really make corporate profits, per se.

    15. Re:Taxes by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      1. If you are in business, you can always deduct business expenses. Doesn't matter whether you are a sole proprietor or have incorporated.
      2. Have you ever tried filling out an 1120S? It's pretty easy. I got sick of waiting for my CPA one year and did it myself. Fired CPA and never looked back.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    16. Re:Taxes by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

      You need to talk to an accountant. My company is an S-Corp. I need to keep everything separate, and my accountant files a return for my business and a separate return for my personal finances.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    17. Re:Taxes by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      I have an accountant. You do an 1120S to calculate your income, then a K-1 to pass through the profits to the shareholders. You then report your K-1 income on your 1040, and pay personal taxes on it.

      You don't pay corporate taxes, you pay personal taxes.

  9. maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you just want to take the revenue as personable income right away then it doesn't make sense to incorporate. If you want to leave the money in the business to be taxed at a lower rate then yes do incorporate. The running costs of doing an extra set of books..accounting etc are there so if its just an occasional side project then I wouldn't do it.

  10. Are you at risk? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    Do you believe you can be sue by someone purchasing your applications? Do you believe you might be on the short end of litigation by another developer who claims you copied his trademark or patent?

    The problem with incorporation is the paperwork nightmare that goes with it and if you draw a salary, the need to do more for soc. sec, medicare, unemplyment, etc.

    If you can treat the income from the work as instead your savings you might avoid much of that by drawing no salary 'until such a time as revenues reach X' where X is some stupid large number. When you are through with developing you can do a return of capital to the shareholders and dissolve the corporation.

    Of course, always check with one of your lawyer friends first.

  11. When the rights of corporations exceed a person's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the rights of corporations exceed a person's rights, then you should incorporate.

  12. When is it a good idea to ask slashdot? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not when it involves legal matters. Talk to an accountant or a lawyer.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:When is it a good idea to ask slashdot? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      He was asking for people's experiences, not legal advice. The range of comments that beat yours were already an interesting read.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:When is it a good idea to ask slashdot? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously. I once hired a lawyer without hiring a lawyer first to ask if I should hire a lawyer. Big mistake. It was totally unnecessary. If only I had hired that lawyer he would have told me not to hire a lawyer and I would have saved a lot of money.

    3. Re:When is it a good idea to ask slashdot? by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      You are right to suggest seeking professional advice if he thinks it may be worthwhile going ahead, but a businessman should always be seeking advice widely and contemporaries are a good source.

      I'm UK so unfamiliar with US, but I suspect commentators so far have covered most of the highlights.

      Pros:
      - Limited liability, your non-business assets are protected (note that to a degree this assumes you fulfilled your responsibilities as an officer of the company).
      - Can be taxation advantages, in part this can be due to a lower overall tax bill and in part can be due to being able to defer tax to an extent, keeping some cash for use in the business.
      - Some potential customers/suppliers perceive a formal company as somehow more legit.

      Cons:
      - More paperwork, of which failures can have consequences e.g. penalties.
      - More complex paperwork, may need an accountant (though keep good books and their costs should be limited to mainly value-added stuff).
      - Potentially some other costs, like in some situations you may be an employee of your company so your company may be required to obtain insurances.
      - May need to publicly file information you would rather keep private.
      - Enjoying "taxation advantages" can turn quite normal people into greedy shits.

  13. Seek advice (not from slashdot) by killmenow · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been running my own consulting gig via an LLC since 2006. It does have some advantages and is cheap to set up. (Cost me $125 filing fee with the secretary of state's office.) Two things I'd advise:

    1. Talk to your insurance agent and buy an umbrella/general liability insurance policy. There's an "errors & omissions" kind of policy that might be perfect. But a general liability may suit you also (it's what I have). But you should definitely talk to the agent about it.

    2. Talk to an attorney. Pay $75-$100 for a one-time consultation with an attorney and get their advice on what kind of business model suits you best. The LLC worked best for me. It may be right for you but I can't say. Maybe there are specific advantages to an S-Corp in your case. I don't know. But an attorney you pay to help you make the decision should.

    You may also want to talk to an accountant about it. I skipped that part and many people I know in similar situations think I'm an idiot for doing so.

    1. Re:Seek advice (not from slashdot) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2. Talk to an attorney. Pay $75-$100 for a one-time consultation with an attorney and get their advice on what kind of business model suits you best. The LLC worked best for me. It may be right for you but I can't say. Maybe there are specific advantages to an S-Corp in your case. I don't know. But an attorney you pay to help you make the decision should.

      The OP mentions this activity as a "side business," so there are big differences to consider.

      Both an LLC and an S-Corp pass all earnings and losses through to their owners - the entire amount every year. If you want to keep any of that money "in" your business (called retained earnings) to use later on as some sort of operating capital, etc - then you will pay personal income taxes on that money despite the fact that you don't have personal access to it. Since this is a side business and not something that the OP is relying upon for living expenses, it is worth considering a plain old C-Corp. As the money builds up, the business can hire some additional workers, buy expensive equipment, attempt to be the next Berkshire Hathaway. You can do all that with an LLC or S-Corp, but every time it needs money you have to have additional buy-in from the "owners" to convert the personal money to business money.

      And don't forget, for all the talk about limiting your personal liability you only get that protection if you are acting as an officer of the business in accordance with the laws of the state of incorporation. If someone is going to sue your business, they ARE going to attempt to go after you as a person and claim you weren't treating the business as a business. The less you make the business bank account look like just another one of your personal checking accounts, the cheaper it is for your lawyer to trash those ridiculous claims.

  14. My Personal Experience by jchawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've owned and maintained an LLC for about the last 3 years. I own 99% of it and 1% is controlled by my father. I did this so I could continue to maintain the protection that the LLC structure offers. In the event that I would ever get sued my personal assets should be shielded from the lawsuit. (Not that I plan to get sued but you can never be too careful).

    I was able to incorporate in the State of Pennsylvania (where I live) for a filing fee of $125. I was also able to to register for an EIN with the IRS for free. From there I opened a bank account and got moving. I do limited consulting from time to time as well as manage a couple of servers for some folks. I keep everything totally separate. At the end of the year I work with a local accountant who charges me $125 to $200 to complete my LLC taxes with the State and the Fed.

    There are some inherent benefits to having an LLC. I'm able to purchase business equipment such as laptops, computers, supplies, etc... with pre-tax money which lets my dollars go much further.

    Additionally other businesses automatically seem to take me more seriously when I reach out to them for software, equipment, services or as a potential client.

    If you are already tracking your spending it's honestly not a lot of work. You just have to keep track of your income and expense for your business. If you are small a spreadsheet and some folders for paperwork will work just fine.

    The LLC structure has been extremely easy for me to manage and most months I don't even think about it. The only advice I have is avoid those "we incorporate you" websites. Chances are pretty good if you do a little bit of research you will be more then able to handle this yourself. Also reach out to the state that you are incorporating in, you'll be surprised at how helpful they can be with the process.

    Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, I'm happy to help.

    1. Re:My Personal Experience by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      There are some inherent benefits to having an LLC. I'm able to purchase business equipment such as laptops, computers, supplies, etc... with pre-tax money which lets my dollars go much further.

      What does this have to do with an LLC? A sole proprietor can do the same.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  15. Generally, Yes by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Informative
    Having a corporation confers a lot of tax advantages. My first boss, 23 years ago now, was the owner of the business and he treated that thing like a piggy bank. Which, really, it was. If he could get away with the company owning a resource (like his cars) he'd do that. So a lot of his daily expenses were paid for by the company. That meant, among other things, he didn't pay income taxes on the income that paid for his cars. There are also tricks to structure at least some of your income to be taxed at a lower rate.

    The down side is that it takes a lot of paperwork, a relationship with a lawyer and an accountant and your taxes get a lot more complicated. Also, the IRS is well aware that a corporation makes a good tax dodge, so you have to be careful to keep good records and not run afoul of them. And be able to prove to them that you're on the level when they come asking. They probably WILL come asking.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Generally, Yes by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      My first boss, 23 years ago now, was the owner of the business and he treated that thing like a piggy bank. Which, really, it was. If he could get away with the company owning a resource (like his cars) he'd do that. So a lot of his daily expenses were paid for by the company. That meant, among other things, he didn't pay income taxes on the income that paid for his cars.

      Had a friend who did the same thing - then he got audited and as a result went bankrupt. You can "get away" with a lot, just don't get caught.

    2. Re:Generally, Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a corporation confers a lot of tax advantages. My first boss, 23 years ago now, was the owner of the business and he treated that thing like a piggy bank. Which, really, it was. If he could get away with the company owning a resource (like his cars) he'd do that. So a lot of his daily expenses were paid for by the company. That meant, among other things, he didn't pay income taxes on the income that paid for his cars. There are also tricks to structure at least some of your income to be taxed at a lower rate.

      The down side is that it takes a lot of paperwork, a relationship with a lawyer and an accountant and your taxes get a lot more complicated. Also, the IRS is well aware that a corporation makes a good tax dodge, so you have to be careful to keep good records and not run afoul of them. And be able to prove to them that you're on the level when they come asking. They probably WILL come asking.

      IAL but not your lawyer. Treating a corporation like your piggy bank is the exact thing that allows someone suing a corporation to go after that shareholder. It's called piercing the veil because the corporation is a sham.

    3. Re:Generally, Yes by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Oh my boss got audited too. He had a good accountant and a good lawyer, though, and the IRS didn't find anything significant when they went looking. You really have to educate yourself about what you can get away with, and ask your accountant and your lawyer if you're not sure.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Generally, Yes by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Yeah, a restaurant here in town that we used to eat at a lot was sued by their employees for labor law violations. I saw that the employees' lawyer was attempting that maneuver with the justification that the owner of the restaurant and her husband were essentially just using the corporation as an alias. Friend of mine dug up the legal documents because it was a pretty good restaurant until everyone quit, and he was curious about what exactly had happened.

      That might have worked on my first boss, too, if he had ever been sued by anyone. He was fairly legit though, had about 20 employees while I was working there and a decent business model. The company owned both the cars I ever saw him driving, so he was doing at least some of the things I've heard about as far as sheltering income for taxes, but that wasn't the company's sole purpose for existing. He just viewed it as a nice bonus.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    5. Re:Generally, Yes by olau · · Score: 1

      I had an accountant who gave this advice: look at yourself in the mirror and ask, is this really right? If you can't honestly say yes, don't do it.

      I'd have to agree. Whatever you do, keep your path clean. This also goes for interactions with customers and other business partners. Trust and a clean conscience is worth more than a bit of money.

    6. Re:Generally, Yes by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      If he could get away with the company owning a resource (like his cars) he'd do that. So a lot of his daily expenses were paid for by the company.

      This would be illegal. If the IRS were to catch wind of it, he'd be in a world of hurt.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    7. Re:Generally, Yes by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      The IRS audited him once. Didn't find anything seriously wrong. That was 20 years ago though, so I don't know if what he'd been doing would fly today. He's beyond their reach now. A lifetime of cigarettes and working in a toxic environment caught up with him years ago. From what I hear, the company fell apart shortly thereafter.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  16. For mobile apps... by nighthawk243 · · Score: 1

    I don't see it making too much sense unless you plan on becoming huge at it (and actually becoming a company with other people on your payroll as employees). Really, as long as you don't screw up and mishandle customer's private data; you shouldn't be at too much risk of legal liability. In your case, it would probably just be for tax purposes if it works out to be better that way.

  17. Ask a Lawyer by swaltman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I asked my lawyer this question, his advice was that for a one-man shop, incorporating does not significantly affect your liability. If you are negligent, then they can come after you, whether or not you have incorporated. I know this differs from the word on the street. I made him say it several times, because it was not the answer I expected. Where it makes a difference is if you have partners. If your partner is negligent, then a corporation or LLC can shield you. BTW, he did not bill me for that consultation. There is really no excuse for asking a large group of non-lawyers instead of calling one on the phone for a few minutes.

  18. A legal answer by gavron · · Score: 5, Informative

    24 people have posted before I did. They all had some input. From a US Legal perspective none of them adressed the real issue.

    "When to incorporate?" -- When you need to.

    The purpose of a corporation is to create an "entity" (some mistakenly call this "person") that is the true wage earner,
    whose assets are the only ones impacted by the acts of the corporation.

    If you're a sole practitioner, and every dollar that comes in goes to you, a corporation will not shield your personal assets from anything.

    For a sole practitioner to effectively use a corporation you'd need to
    - make sure the corporation collects all fees and pays all expenses related to the consulting work AND NOTHING ELSE
    - make sure the corporation 1099s you or W-2s you or in some way tax-wise indicates it pays you legal wages, not under-table money transfers
    - never comingle coporate resources and your own needs (in other words, no corporate paying your gasoline refill enroute to the customer or your lunch) ...and finally... the expensive part...
    Have D&O E&O insurance.

    If you're willing to go through all that, a corporation can shield your assets.

    For one guy, far cheaper not to be a screwup and not get sued, and not mess with any of that.

    The law is pretty clear. If it's a separate entity ("person") then it needs to be separate. If you keep it so, and keep it insured, it will protect you.

    E
    P.S. All I've said is specific to United States corporation and contract law.

    1. Re:A legal answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For a sole practitioner to effectively use a corporation you'd need to...

      ... do exactly the same things you'd need to do if you're NOT a sole practitioner and have multiple partners and employees.

      If you run a corporation with partners and treat it like your personal piggy bank, then you will lose your protections as well. If you run a corporation the way it's intended to be run - i.e., as a separate legal entity - then it does not matter how many people are employees of that corporation - 1 or 1000.

      It is absolutely important the people understand that they can't just "wave a magic wand" and get protection, but it's also important that they understand that if they get competent advice from an accountant and attorney, and they follow the very simple rules that the lawyers and accountants will lay out, incorporation is a perfectly good way to protect personal assets, even if you're a sole proprietor/practitioner.

  19. Set up an LLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this stage in your corporate development, assuming you're in a jurisdiction that allows them, you should consider setting up a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) or possibly an S-Corp. They offer many of the advantages of a corporation (limited liability and a legal entity to hold assets/insurance etc.) as well as a partnership/sole proprietorship (pass through taxation, control). The paperwork is usually very simple depending on your appetite for that sort of a thing (i'm a bad reference for that, i'm a CPA)

    If you ever outgrow the LLC/S-Corp, you can do something more complicated and get more lawyers and accountants involved.

  20. Don't Let Overhead Eat You by troutner · · Score: 2

    I've had a couple businesses where I incorporated right off the bat. Ultimately, it was expensive and the overhead hurt my business. Like you, I am in a consulting business at the moment. Three months into it, I still have not registered the business.

    I don't need the overhead, I don't need the liability protection, and I don't need to waste time right now filling out forms and keeping the State happy. I need to focus on keeping my customers happy and making money. If I manage to net $10K or more this year on this side business, then I'll register. Otherwise I would just be making a lot of extra work for myself.

    Make sure that your business is going to succeed - because unregistering a corporation is expensive and usually even more time consuming that registering it in the first place.

  21. Take this with a grain of salt... by samazon · · Score: 1
    I do some freelance work in addition to my 8-5, and I will not consider forming a corporation or LLC any time soon. When I was contracting as a campaign employee, I considered doing so for tax reasons - however, it's easier to just file an "extra income" form (I had a W-4 on the campaign) and make sure you track your purchases. Between buying new software, a new computer, and other business-related expenses (and a little extra withholding from my real job) I don't pay much more in taxes than I normally would - itemizing expenses, of course - although I don't get anything back from the government at the end of the year (I did when I was not doing side projects). It makes for a more annoying tax filing, but nothing a reasonably intelligent person can't handle alone. I only make (at most) 33% of my "regular" income doing freelance (so let's say I make $30,000 a year, and take three freelance jobs for $3000 each per year) and it is neither a "considerable" amount of money compared to what I make nor is what I do something that I could potentially be sued over. Also, I don't own a house, car, etc. so I have nothing worth taking.

    If you'll be making a lot of money or doing something that could get you sued, get an attorney and an accountant.

    --
    I have the hiccups.
  22. Corporations are evil by swillden · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you read slashdot, you know that corporations are evil. So, clearly, the time to incorporate is when you decide to become evil.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Corporations are evil by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Not all corporations are evil. A lot of non-profits are, in fact, corporations. It is publicly traded corporations that are generally evil because they are for sale to the highest bidder, who is usually evil.

  23. Yes by SupplyMission · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you are working as a consultant, then the biggest advantage of incorporating will be in tax savings.

    In Canada (Ontario specifically) there is a break-even point around $42k/yr income, where the personal income tax and corporate income tax (and accountant fees, etc.) you pay will be approximately equal. Above $42k/yr income, the corporate tax will become less and less compared to personal tax. This is due to the fact that the corporate tax rate is fixed at 16.5% (until $500k or $1M annual income... I can't recall) while personal tax rates have brackets that increase as you make more money.

    To take an example from my past, the last year before I incorporated I made roughly $86,000 and paid about $22,000 in personal income taxes. The accountant that helped me incorporate did some calculating, and if I were incorporated, the corp would have had to pay only about $13,000-14,000 in taxes.

    There are some costs associated with running a corporation. There are the initial costs of setting it up, usually between $2000-4000 for lawyers and accountants. Then annually, you will probably have an accountant prepare your corporate taxes, which will cost around $750-2000 depending on who does it and how organized your paperwork is. These are extra hassles that some people find unpalatable, and it is a bit of extra administrative work on your part, but altogether, it saves you thousands and is very much worth it. (Unless you have some kind of ADHD and psychologically cannot deal with paperwork.)

    Another tax saving tool available in Canada is that you can make $50k/yr in dividend income, tax free. Therefore, if you and your significant other are both part owners in your newly formed corp, then you can essentially have a combined household (personal) income of $100k/yr, tax free because your corp will pay out dividends to its owners, rather than salary (which is all taxable). You will probably not make exactly $100k/yr tax free (but it will still be around $95k or $98k) because in order to take advantage of various tax credits you have to show some personal income. How this is works is that, whenever you need money from your corp, you just withdraw it. At the end of your fiscal year, you and your accountant will figure out how to label those withdrawals, be it dividends, salary, whatever, to maximize the tax savings. That is how I have been doing it in Canada, anyway, and your accountant will be more familiar with how this stuff works in your area.

    The best thing you can do (aside from asking the experts on Slashdot, of course) is to go see an accountant who deals with corporate stuff. Explain to him or her what you are thinking about doing and outline your current situation. Using your 2011 net income as an example, they can then draw up a spreadsheet for you, showing what would be your taxes and other numbers if you had been incorporated in 2011. This will let you know with little uncertainty what is your best course of action.

    There are other benefits that come with having a corporation, your corp can purchase the equipment (e.g. laptops, mobile devices for testing, etc.) that you will use to do the service that the corporation sells. This can be recorded as an expense of the corp, which reduces the corporate taxes. In contrast if you bought equipment personally, it would not affect your tax situation at all. This is nice if you like toys, and would like some extra reasons to rationalize their purchase.

    In summary, if you plan to make more than $42k (*) this year from your moon-lighting activities, just get it done already.

    * $42k, or whatever is the break-even number for the tax system you live in.

    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, corporate taxes are the same or higher than personal income taxes. Plus, if you pay yourself dividends, you end up paying yourself twice. The US actually has a special corporation (called an S-corp) that allows you to pay the individual rate on corporate earnings. The downside is that an S-corp can't retain earnings.

    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can deduct business expenses as a sole proprietorship. You can even deduct business expenses for "hobbies", as long as you can show that you occasionally actually make money at it--it's functionally equivalent to a sole proprietorship at that point. This is true in the United States, and likely true in Canada. That's because when it comes to taxes, most countries care more about the actual situation than being finicky about legal classifications. (Too rigid classifications invariably creates loopholes.)

      A corporation usually isn't worth the time & expense for a single person. It's easy to screw up corporate formalities, and then when you expect to be protected, you're screwed. If you have to ask, "should I use a corporation", then the answer is, "no". There are easier alternatives.

      The simplest and most fool-proof way to do these things is setup an LLC (or whatever the equivalent in your jurisdiction is). Then, if you have the cash, purchase professional liability insurance, and/or personal umbrella coverage. The tax stuff is easy. You don't need an accountant unless you're juggling multiple businesses at once, or if you need to depreciate multiple capital expenses (and you're worried the taxman will get pissed if you just take a 100% deduction the first year). If it's just you, a single business entity, and non-capital expenses, just use Turbo Tax.

      Also, a word of wisdom: never trust an accountant when it comes to expensing. I studied tax law in law school, and every accountant I've met breaks the law. Intentionally. Out of ignorance. Or just because the law can change quickly under their noses. Accounts are bookkeepers, not lawyers. And an accountant's advice is never a defense when the taxman comes knocking on your door. Just keep that little bit of knowledge under your belt. (Of course, you should probably still listen to your accountant's advice; just realize that sometimes he's more shaman than scientist.)

  24. LLC now, Sub S corp later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The details on how to do so vary from state to state, but there is a general guide. You want to form an LLC right now. This is easy to do and cheap. It prevents your personal assets from being seized in the event of bankruptcy or lawsuit against the business.

    If you make more than 20K a year, you can save social security taxes by becoming a Sub S corporation. As an LLC, you have to pay 14 percent of all your income to social security. As a Corporation, you can claim a portion of the income as a salary and pay the Social Security tax on it. The rest of your income, you can claim as profit, and not pay the social security taxes, but only pay income tax on it. It's best to have a CPA help you through the transition, though, so there is a tradeoff between the amount saved by the sub S corp, and the amount you have to pay a professional for help.

    1. Re:LLC now, Sub S corp later by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      As an LLC, you have to pay 14 percent of all your income to social security. As a Corporation, you can claim a portion of the income as a salary and pay the Social Security tax on it.

      For federal tax purposes, any LLC can elect to be treated as a corporation. What other tax treatment options are available depend on whether the LLC has one or more members.

  25. 2 situations by sribe · · Score: 1

    1) You are hiring employees.

    2) You are consistently making $100,000/year or more net, and are in a state where the cost of maintaining a corporation is not burdensome. I'm not going to give legal advice here, consult a CPA and find out how at that level an S corp can save you money on taxes.

    You will get many people telling you to incorporate in order to limit your personal liability and protect your assets. That is mostly bullshit--when you are a 1-person corporation it is extremely easy for someone whom your "corporation" harms to "pierce the corporate veil" by, essentially (legal stuff grossly simplified here) showing that you were acting as your individual self rather than as a true corporate officer. However, back to my #1 above, when you have employees, and one of them screws up, then you really do get useful protection.

    1. Re:2 situations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad advice.

      If you maintain a separation between corporate and personal assets, it's very hard for someone to "pierce the corporate veil."

      Generally this piercing requires all 3 of the following conditions to be true:
      1) There was no true distinction between corporate and personal assets & finances - e.g., paying personal bills with the company checkbook.
      2) The actions that harmed someone were wrongful or fraudulent - e.g., you built a home for a customer out of scrap wood that was infested with termites.
      3) The creditors as a result suffer an unjust cost - e.g., "I paid you to build me a house, and a week after I took ownership, the fucking thing fell down."

      If you operate the business as a separate entitiy, a court will be hard-pressed to justify piercing the veil. It has nothing to do with "acting as your individual self," and everything to do with maintaining a distinct and legal separation between the operations of the business and your own personal finances. Of course you act as yourself - the question is, did "yourself" manage the business as if it were a separate financial entity and keep a clear division between business and personal assets?

      To the OP: You want to incorporate (or LLC, or S-Corp - talk to an actual lawyer, there are options, and some may be easier or better suited to your particular situation) when you have sufficient personal assets to protect from the risks you take as a business owner. Family to support, kids to send to college? House? Car? Retirement savings? You want to protect all of these. Think of incorporation as a form of insurance (though you should also have liability insurance) - if things go badly, you don't want to lose your entire life's savings and your home.

      If all you own in the world is a handful of books, a dozen music CDs, and a futon you sleep on... then it's probably not necessary at this point. But if you have anything more than that, you probably want to consider protecting those assets - a small cost for incorporation and a bit of work to keep your personal and business finances separate, and even if your business fails, your personal assets will be substantially protected from creditors.

  26. Re:When every one else does it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually you can and if you do it in some cheap country like Panama it will cost you around $600/year ($50/month) i am sure you could save more in taxes whatever you do than $50/month cost even if you are dirt-poor

  27. Re:When every one else does it. by F34nor · · Score: 1

    Or a trust.

  28. Advantages and disadvantages by DRichardHipp · · Score: 1
    Advantages:
    • (1) Your corporation will have a separate tax ID number, meaning that you won't have to give your your SSN to clients.
    • (2) Your personal assets are better protected from liability lawsuits
    • (3) Clients tend to take you more seriously if you are a corporation rather than a sole proprietor.

    Disadvantages:

    • (1) You have two income tax returns to file instead of just one. And the corporate return is considerably more complicated and jargon-rich than the 1040 you are used to. You can try to do the corporate income tax return yourself if you are masochist, but I would recommend paying $500-$1000 to get an income tax profession to do it for you. Getting the corporate return prepared professionally might also help you to avoid unwanted attention from the IRS.
    • (2) There is a lot more paperwork. You will have monthly and quarterly filings with various local, state, and federal entities. I recommend that you keep a calendar of what needs to be filed, with whom, and when.
    • (3) You will need new bank accounts. (Co-mingling of personal and corporate funds is not allowed.) Banks charge higher fees and pay less interest and offer fewer fraud protection guarantees to corporate accounts.
  29. It costs $2'000 per year by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    up to $2K to incorporate, and up to $2K in accountants fees annually. But that's about it (in Canada). It's a bit of a nuisance in that you've got to spend about 5 hours annually with simple paperwork and phone calls and keeping government records up to date when you move.

    So the answer is simple. When you can write-off $10K annually, you'll save yourself the $2K in taxes alone. Between home offices, client meals, car allowances and more, it's all very quickly worthwhile.

    1. Re:It costs $2'000 per year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are a rather large company, you will not need to pay $2,000 a year in Canada. I ran a company that did ~$1,000,000 in retail sales per year and our accountant charged $500 and threw in personal taxes for myself and the partner. Mind you, our personal taxes were simple and he may not have been the best accountant (but he was fully certified), but $2k is very high for a single entity corporation.

      The hardest part of it is to ensure you actually keep the meeting books updated, which we were terrible at.

    2. Re:It costs $2'000 per year by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      certainly $2K is high. but between the accountant, and the corporate lawyer (to cover the meeting books, the shares, the partnership docs, various NDAs, and the occasional contract), and being in a big city, even my tiny $200'000 service-based single-man company winds up spending $2K quite easily. It's not 3, but it's definitely more than 1.

  30. This. by sirwired · · Score: 3

    People mistakenly believe that incorporation is some sort of "magic wand" that reduces your tax liability and limits legal liability. Unless you meet the VERY STRICT rules for keeping the corporation at an appropriate "arms length" it does none of those things. (And it really doesn't do much for your tax liability even if you do incorporate.) Really, if you are just getting started on your own, insurance is a LOT less of a time sink than incorporation, and time is something any new entrepreneur does not have nearly enough of.

    1. Re:This. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it very much is a magic wand that reduces your tax and legal liability.

      If you're rich.

      The only barrier is having enough money to pay an a accountant/lawyer to setup the paperwork. That is all. Full stop.
      The rich really are a privileged class that enjoy protections not available to the general public. All it takes is money.

    2. Re:This. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      It is a difference wether you pay *once* taxes for $100,000 freelance income *or* pay in two chunks: tax for your $50,000 salary *and* tax fro the $50,000 earnings of your company (which has payed you $50,000 in wages).
      Bottom line that easy saves $15,000 if not more. See my other post where I emphasized on the effect it has when you let the company *sleep* a year.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  31. Corporations are for assets by PPH · · Score: 1

    There are other (less expensive) means of doing so than a full blown corporation. But they serve little use for someone just earning an income.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. Easy by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

    When your accountant thinks it's a good idea. Don't have an accountant? Don't think you need one? Then you don't need to be incorporated.

    --
    -
  33. When Mitt Romney wins the election by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Corporations are people

    1. Re:When Mitt Romney wins the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are recognized as people today. Obama hasn't changed that.
       
      Oh, I see, you're one of those people who think Obama is actually making changes for the man on the street? LOLz!! Good one. Thanks for the vote, sucker.

    2. Re:When Mitt Romney wins the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the supreme courts decision, the "conservative" judges thought it would be a good idea to make corps people. There is nothing Obama can do to change that (separation of powers) the change must come either from congress, or the Supreme court would need to reverse its own decision.

      Now has Obama failed at a lot of the things he promised? Yes! BUT LETS BLAME THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!

  34. Tax by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    In Canada at least, for a revenue stream of $100,000, the small business tax rate is about half the personal tax rate. So if you think that you could perchance use $15,000 or so yourself, instead of giving it to the tax man, then you should incorporate. If however, you think that the federal government will put your money to better use, then don't.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  35. Which country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it depends which country you live in?

    The article poster didnt say which country he lives in.

    It matters because there are significant differences between countries in corporation tax rates (0% - 35%) and dividend rules, beneficial loan rules and whether it is even allowed at all (some countries have rules to deter of frustrate small one man companies from benefiting from the same company tax regime as larger multi-person companies).

    And I suppose also whether you incorporate the company in the same country as you live in is another parameter.

    In some countries it makes a lot of sense to incorporate your company in a lower corporation tax company, because then you wont get taxed at all on dividend income if you dont remit it. (Eg if your domicile or local tax rules mean that you do not have to pay tax on foreign income).

    The person who said something about limited liability there can be advantages to being incorporated in other jurisdictions on that front also (asset protection).

    If you want to get fancy and have enough income to travel and live an expat life-style by personal election, go read up on five flags theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler (With the caveat that if you have a US passport your first and perhaps insurmountable challenge is to get rid of it or the US IRS will tax you even if you dont live in the US, unlike any other country pretty much.)

  36. You basically either have two choices, or none by Ken+Hall · · Score: 1

    This assumes you're in the US, I don't know about elsewhere.

    I was a consultant for 9 years. When I set up initially, I had two options: Let the company that contracted me pay me on a W2, handle the taxes, and take a cut for their trouble, or incorporate and let them pay me corp-to-corp.

    Many companies will not pay a contractor on a 1099, which is how you pay someone for services if they're not an employee. There are too many potential IRS headaches if the contractor doesn't handle things properly on his end, especially when large sums are involved. It's okay for small amounts on one-time jobs, but there's a big risk that a 1099 contractor could be considered an employee under certain rules, and then all kinds of unexpected problems kick in. So many companies avoid the whole headache by only dealing with corporations. When one corporation pays another, the payer is basically off the hook for tax-reporting responsibility, it all falls on the payee.

    I set up an S-corporation, which is a simpler option than many others, although my accountant (who came in late) said I might have been better off with an LLC. In any case, the biggest headache was that I set it up in NJ, which has screwy tax laws for S-corps. I'm still trying to extricate myself from that, and the corp closed over 5 years ago.

    So suggestion: If you're going to (or required to) incorporate, do it through an accountant or a registration service, set it up in a corp-friendly state like Delaware and use a registered agent, and find a good CPA to help you through the tax pitfalls. Mine was decent, but endlessly distracted by more lucrative clients, so I ended up paying more in taxes than I needed to, and it took me 5 years to discover that.

    A good friend of mine who was in business long before I was avoided incorporating till it was absolutely necessary. What finally convinced him he needed to was when NJ decided to consider his part-time babysitter an employee of his business, and require him to pay unemployment tax for her. At that point he decided splitting his business and personal affairs made sense. YMMV.

  37. professionals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ask a good attorney and accountant, not slashdot

  38. Maybe you ... by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

    Should be asking a lawyer? They can give you a better prepared answer geared to your unique issues?

  39. If you plan to do it as your primary source of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...income and you want to protect your assets more fully.

    Creating a Chapter-S corporation allows you to pay yourself in payroll salary and in distributions - with the caveat that the salary portion must represent a reasonable salary for you work.

    This means that you only pay the government payroll taxes on the salary part, not on the distribution (think of the distribution as a profit sharing plan with yourself.) You will pay federal income tax on both, but income tax is all you pay on the distribution portion.

    I.e. If your consulting brings in $160k in a year (and ignoring all the costs to you involved) and you give yourself that money, you could pay yourself a salary of $80k a year and pay yourself $80k in distributions. So you pay payroll taxes on 80k and you don't on the other 80k. 80k is a reasonable salary for most types of jobs (in this example - a software engineer.)

    Now, IANAL, and I recommend you get a CPA to walk you through the process - they are usually the easiest way to incorporate and get tax advice (plus they usually have nice Excel worksheets that make putting your quarterly taxes aside quite trivial.)

    My company's CPA charges $75 per quarter to prepare our quarterly taxes and $250 for the end of year tax preparation, and he gives us lots of advice on how to manage our money, how to structure costs, manage our tax burdens, et cetera. Money well spent until I can actually afford a CFO.

  40. My Opinion on this by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    as soon as you have an accountant and a lawyer on a semi regular basis you should have a Company (in fact both of them will suggest same).

    Having a company of some sorts also makes it easier to get PAID even if your Cat is the Marketing Director and Your Dog is your Security Director.

    i think asking the question is most likely properly answered with "Three days ago would have been smart"

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  41. Costs versus tax savings by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I did that a while ago.

    Before that I workd as "freelancer". That ment a year with a high income led to high taxes. A year with no income had no benefit (well, payed no taxes ofc ...)

    Now with my incorporation, the company works as a buffer, safing taxes in the long run.

    I'm now no longer "freelancer" but "self employed". My company pays me small wages. So after wages, pension funds and internet/phone bills, the rest teh company makes is profit and taxed. (But to a significantly lower tax rate than above).

    From that wages I pay income taxes (in your case you had likely two times wages, once from your original employer and in addition now from your own company).

    However: if your company stops app development for a year, and continues paying you, it makes a loss in that year (on top of paying no taxes ofc). That loss, even from several years, is carried into the next year. Your personal taxes from your double income are not affected ofc.

    Example: before incorporation I make $100,000 profit like this:
    2007: $100000 -> 45,000 tax
    2008: $85000 -> 39,000 tax
    2009: $0 // sabatical -> 0 Tax.
    2100: $35,000 // only worked half a year -> $6000 Tax

    Now my personal income and company is something like this:

    2007: $38,000 -> $9,000 Tax / $62,000 -> $19000 Tax
    2008: $38,000 -> $9,000 Tax / $47,000 -> $14000 Tax
    2009: $38,000 -> $9,000 / -$38,000 no Tax
    2010: $38,000 -> $9,000 / (-38,000 from previsous year plus $35,000 earnings this year) - $38,000 wages -> additional $3000 loss -> no taxes
    2011: $38,000 -> $9,000 / company starts now with -$41,000 loss.

    Well, that is a bit simplified and the numbers are made up, but as a general idea I guess you get it.

    You see the total taxes payed is far lower (or in other words, the remaining total money you "own" is much more).

    Otoh you have costs to run the company, likely tax counceling, reporting, bookkeeping etc.

    You only have to balance, founding costs and running costs of the company versus the buffering effect of the company (saved taxes).

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Costs versus tax savings by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 1

      2007: $100000 -> 45,000 tax
      2008: $85000 -> 39,000 tax
      2009: $0 // sabatical -> 0 Tax.
      2100: $35,000 // only worked half a year -> $6000 Tax

      Cool! You finally got the time machine to work! But is that 35k in 22nd century dollars?

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
  42. Will all the cash flows be taken out personally? by eric31415927 · · Score: 2

    The incentive to incorporate is lessened if you plan on spending all of the cash generated by the business. For then you would have to report all of the income at graduated personal income tax rates.

    If you plan to leave cash in the business and not use it personally right away, then incorporating makes much more sense. Here, the amount of combined personal + corporate taxes in the near term would be smaller. The time value of money in the delay of paying taxes works in your favour. What might the business do with its retained earnings? It could invest in assets to grow its own business. It could invest in other businesses.

  43. Do it RIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This depends so much on where you live, what you are doing exactly, and how you will manage yourself, that it's nigh impossible to tell you when the right time is.

    For example, due to the minimum investment and minimum operating cost (taxes, notaries, etc), in my country it is currently not considered to be monetarily beneficial to incorporate unless you have a minimum of $150K revenue per year. The minimum investment is being dropped soon, so that makes it *much* easier, but you still have a few K USD per year in basic costs. Find out what the costs are for you, are they worth it ?

    For some, even if they have less revenue in a year, it's easily worth it because many liability insurance agencies (at least over here) refuse to insure software development. As such, you have to have the limited liability of incorporating. But if you can get the liability insured, that might be cheaper than incorporating.

    There's also the way liability works that differs between areas. Over here, for example, you are still personally liable for everything that happens in the first year of incorporating. And if you mess up significantly (negligence) or "should have known" (f.x. made debts while your income prognoses are dubious), you're still personally liable. The same goes for not having a 100% proper by the book administration, filing your taxes on time, publishing your yearly figures to the chamber of commerce, etc etc. You need to figure out exactly what is needed, and you need to follow those rules to the letter.

    Of course, you can put assets in your company. First you need to figure out what assets you can legally put in the company's name (pre income tax spending, huzzah), because if you put something in the company's name that you shouldn't, that might just be tax fraud. You can try to play the system, but as a rule of thumb, don't put anything in the company you don't *need* for work. Again, rules differ depending on where you are at.

    You should also be aware that anything you put in the company is subject to being lost. If you put your house on your company's name (can be tricky by itself), you mess up, and somebody comes after your company, you could lose the house.

    Do yourself a favor: Consult your chamber of commerce, read up on your local laws (you'll need it), talk to a lawyer and/or accountant. If you're serious about this, spending a few $K USD now to make sure you get it right will save you a lot of grief and money later.

  44. Subchapter S-Corp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really if you are going to incorporate and it is just you I would recommend a Subchapter S Corporation.
    An LLC is much more expensive to form as it requires publishing in 2 trade publications with the announcement of the formation of the corporation.
    A Subchapter S Corp allows you to borrow money from your own corporation without having to pay social security/medicare/etc. if you take it as a dispersement. The other corporations LLC and a tradional Corporation do not allow for this. You will have to file quaterly taxes. Any losses from the business are refected on your personal tax return at the end of the year for income tax. You also will have to keep annual "meeting notes" as well on file even if you are the soul person running it as that is dictated by the SEC.

    Traditional corporations have a much higher level of paperwork requirements then an LLC LLP or Subchapter S Corp.

    I can tell you from experience any tax paperwork or paperwork that goes to the state or the SEC save yourself headaches and send it certified mail return receipt only. The common excuse heard is "they are not responsible for mail" when you send in paperwork that goes missing.

    Additionally each state has their own incorporation laws, you will need to check your local state laws. Delaware for example is vry corporation friendly however if you do not live in Delaware and lived in New York you would have to pay taxes to both Delaware and New York additionally you would need to apply for permits to operate in New York.

    Total cost for an LLC with a lawyer is about $2,500.00 Total cost for a Subchapter S Corp with lawyer is about $1,500 - $2,000 because you do not have the added cost of publication.

    1. Re:Subchapter S-Corp by Ken+Hall · · Score: 1

      There's a bit more to this state-corporation tax thing than meets the eye. I incorporated in NJ to simplify my bookeeping, but NJ has a law that taxes S-corps at the same rate as C-corps. That's a higher rate than personal income, even though all of the S-corp income goes to the shareholder (me).

      The NJ state corporate tax return is a nightmare to do properly, and you always end up paying more than you think you should. NJ also has a minimum $500 corporate tax annually, so even if your corp made NOTHING, you're still on the hook for that. To CLOSE your corporation in NJ requires filing a special form and paying another $100 fee.

      If you incorporate in Delaware, for example, there's no state return to file (far as I know), and you only have to pay personal income tax on your salary/1099 income (including self-employment tax on 1099 income), but if you take part of your income as "distribution", or dividend on your share, that part is not subject to SE tax (which is mainly FICA and Medicare). In any case, there's no extra tax on the income just because a corp is involved.

      But to incorporate in a state requires you have a mailing address in that state, so you need to either have someone who lives there accept your mail, or you pay for a "registered agent" who collects it and forwards it to you.

      I agree with others who recommend talking to a CPA, but be wary there too. Several I spoke to wanted to handle my entire business finances, and charge a substantial fee. The CPA I eventually did use was competant, but very distracted, so I ended up paying him to have me pay much more in taxes than I should have. Just because he has the letters after his name doesn't mean he's any good, and doesn't mean he has your best interests at heart.

  45. Talk to a CPA by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    It depends on a few factors such as the laws and regulations of your state, how much income you're making, etc. It's probably a good idea to hire a CPA. A good CPA can show you the tax advantages to incorporating and help you set up your corporation. In my state, it only costs $10 to start up a corporation, and I was able to outsource the payroll (even if you're the only employee, you're still paying yourself) to a company who would handle all the state and federal taxes and filings for about $60/month (this is worth it because there can be hefty fines if you miss a filing or make a mistake).

    It's definitely a good idea if you have the income to justify it.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  46. When? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    After breakfast, certainly.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  47. Thanks all! by stairmaster · · Score: 2

    Thanks you all for your opinions. I definitely will speak with lawyer and accountant friends but it's very helpful to hear about your experiences with the matter. Again thank you very much!

  48. Answer: Any time is a good time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Disclaimer: IAAL)

    As was pointed out earlier, the nature of corporations has changed over the last 10 years. It is high time people start using these changes to their advantage.
    I am of the opinion that today anyone with assets should incorporate (full Corp, no LLCs). You would use this as a personal corporation for *all* your assets.....house, cars, most financial instruments, etc. Try to have as little as possible under your christian name and SS number. Not only does this provide a shield from your negligent ass, it protects against many modern ailments too.

    Someone wants to ID theft you? Sorry stud I use corporate credit cards.
    Want to get cell phones etc? Get them under the corporate banner as a business account.

    Does this lead to you personally having little / no personal credit? Yep. So? The Corp has assets and can get credit. Awesome.
    As long as you keep the corporate formalities it also makes you damn near judgment proof. Further it provides a way for your assets to remain intact should you die or be incapacitated. And if you live in a state that allows trusts to sit on corporate boards (*cough* Nevada *cough*) then even these contingencies can be accounted for.

    *Not legal advice, seek out the advice of a competent adviser etc etc*

  49. Re:If you plan to do it as your primary source of. by Ken+Hall · · Score: 1

    This is pretty much exactly what I did, once I figured out my accountant was making me pay two different (supposedly mutually-exclusive) taxes on the same income. You do need to keep an eye on them and make sure they know what you and they are doing.

    He charged me something like $800 a year to prepare corp and personal taxes too.

  50. Whither offshore incorporation by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3

    Scenario: I incorporate in the Caymans or Hong Kong or somewhere where ownership information doesn't have to be disclosed to the USA. My bank account and web site are there too. The corporation "hires" me, but otherwise keeps any profit. I pay income tax on my declared income, but have access to the corporation's funds via credit card.

    Liabilities? Problems? Legalities? Inquiring minds want to know!

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Whither offshore incorporation by Lehk228 · · Score: 0

      Tell me, Mr. Pepper, what is your opinion of federal prison? You don't have a basis for an opinion right now? If you operate as described, eventually you will have lots of opinions on the federal prison system; and I have never heard of someone enjoying federal prison

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Whither offshore incorporation by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Actually, there was quite a lot of this going on in the late 90s. I just never tracked what became of it. Alas, it's not a problem for me (i.e. salaried and working for a corporation).

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:Whither offshore incorporation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit Ryan, I already told you how to do this. -Mitt

  51. There is more involved... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    There is more involved than choosing the type of business format to operate under. Corporations add asset protections for their shareholders, that is true, but only if you actually keep everything separate. Many an individual has been surprised that they are legally liable even though they formed an LLC, Corp S or even a Corp C. Not only do you need to form the corporation, you need to operate it as a separate entity. You cannot commingle assets, so you need separate bank accounts from your personal accounts. You cannot pay personal expenses from your business account nor can you pay business expenses from your personal account (unless traditional reimbursement expenses like mileage, meals, etc.). If you drive a corporate vehicle, you need to track personal mileage and business mileage and you need to pay taxes on the leased value of your personal mileage. If you operate out of your home, you don't get a deduction from your personal taxes for a home office, because it is the corporation operating there. The corporation should be paying rent for the space and you are liable for taxes on the rent paid.

    There are many other gotcha's that will remove the protections a corporation provides, so suffice it to say, if one chooses this route, they seek actual legal advice on what they may or may not do. That doesn't mean don't do it. Just do it smartly.

  52. Corporate customers fear of the IRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, I had a few customers who were afraid of the IRS considering me an employee and when I informed them that I had a corporate entity and would be doing "Corp to corp" billing, it chilled them out a little - because they demanded that I be onsite, for certain hours, using their equipment, etc .... I was a temp employee with a different tax status.

  53. Yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should have incorporated already. As a contractor, all the code you write is yours. As an employee, all the code you write is theirs, forever. Likewise (as previously stated) anything you value: house, car, underwear, belly lint, etc. is open for suing and grabbing by lawyers of every stripe and description. If you are incorporated, and your business assets include pencils and erasers, then they can sue for all your business has: pencils and erasers.

  54. Do it for taxes, not liability by danpbrowning · · Score: 1

    I recommend incorporation for the tax advantages, not for the lawsuit liability protection. From what I've read, and what my CPA has told me, a lawsuit can make your personal assets just as vulnerable in a single person corporation as they are in a sole prop. The difference is that it's *possible* to make contracts between your corporation and others, rather than you personally. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's likely -- until you build up some significant business credit rating (e.g. a good D&B report) you're going to have to personally guarantee everything (e.g. lines of credit, business visa, etc.) anyway.

    --
    Daniel
  55. The best time to incorporate by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 1

    Shortly before you discorporate.

    --
    http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
  56. LLCs vs. (L|LL|LLL)Ps by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    From my experience, an LLC is used for partnerships.

    LLCs, as such, are not partnerships (though, for federal tax purposes, an LLC with more than one member can be treated either as a partnership or a corporation and an LLC with exactly one member can be treated either as a corporation or a sole proprietorship.) LPs, LLPs, and LLLPs are partnerships.

    In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's.

    Its more common for a narrow range of businesses to be prohibited from being operated as LLCs than the other way around. OTOH, its rather common for LLPs (including LLLPs) to be limited to a certain set of professional corporations. (Its not uncommon for the set of organizations which can be LLPs to be a subset of those that cannot be LLCs, e.g., in California I believe that only certain licensed professions can form LLPs, and those licensed professions are among the businesses that cannot be operated as LLCs.)

    Often they are for protecting the partners from each other.. (ie, accountant partner screws up.. Lawsuit can hurt the partner, but they can't go after the assets of the other partners, if they were not involved)

    Yeah, again, that's true of LLPs (which have partners, and have generally this effect on shielding non-partnership assets of one partner from liabilities incurred by another partner), rather than LLCs.

    Corporations are a way to shield owners (stock holders) from liability.

    So are LLCs (for "members" rather than "stock holders"), and LPs, LLPs, and LLLPs (all for "partners" rather than "stock holders"), though which owners are shielded, which liabilities they are shielded from, and the situations in which that shield can be pierced, vary somewhat between the various structures.

  57. Maybe, Depends by StormReaver · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or tax professional. Use this information at your own risk.

    I incorporated in Missouri a couple years ago as an S-Corporation. There are more drawbacks than benefits in my case, so I'm dissolving it. The biggest drawback is the paperwork. It's so easy to let it slide in order to have time for family and getting actual work done. Then it's very easy to get behind on the paperwork. Then it's very easy to find a letter from the IRS saying they're charging you penalty and interest for late filings. If you do only a small amount of contracting, professional fees are going to eat a significant part of your profits.

    I want to address one VERY important misconception I've read on this discussion: liability. Incorporating as either the sole shareholder, or as one of a very few shareholders DOES NOT PROTECT YOUR PERSONAL ASSETS IF YOU GET SUED. The more shareholders you have, the greater the corporate shield protects you. Incorporating as the sole shareholder gives you almost the exact same liability as being a sole proprietor.

    I found it much easier to just write up a contract disclaiming liability (as one line item), pay a contract attorney to review it and revise it, and then make all customers sign it. That is far more effective at protecting my personal assets than incorporating, and removes 99% of the crap I had to go through while incorporated, and lets me actually get the job done.

    I also did my research to make sure I'm not going to fall into the IRS trap of being considered an employee rather than a contractor. You should, too. It's pretty simple, but very important, stuff.

  58. Three Things Every Business Should Have... by Tinbuktu · · Score: 1

    Any well run business has a core team - even if the business has just a single employee. The biggest mistake I see start-ups make is assuming that because they understand the technology, they can do everything themselves. These people quickly become road kill.

    If your business is making any profit at all, you should have BOTH an excellent accountant/CPA and an excellent business lawyer. You should ask around - talk to well-established, long-running, highly reputible small businesses in the same general field as yours (or related field). Find out who they are using. Once you identify potential candidates for these 2 team members, either call or visit each of them (but keep it short - remember to respect their time). You'll eventual find good matches for your team. Once you identify them, expect to pay them well for what they do. Do not expect to get their service for free. Do not expect to have hour-long phone calls at no charge.

    Has my accountant charged me thousands of dollars? Sure has. And I couldn't be happier! Why? Because what she has charged me pales in comparison to what she has saved me. I hired her 10 years ago when I started my business and I consider it one of the smarter decision I made early on.

    The legal structure of your business requires considering many factors - none of which SlashDot can tell you. For me, it turned out that the best structure was a C-Corp - something that was not obvious and went against all the common wisdom of the time. Had I not hired a lawyer to look at this up front, I likely would have made a very expensive mistake. For you, the answer may be different.

    Finally, your business need marketing expertise. This can be the hardest and most elusive of all roles to fill. While an accountant and a lawyer can be outsourced and brought in on an "as needed" basis, marketing expertise is generally a 24x7 task. If your business is not driven by marketing, you are already road kill. Good marketers are extraordinarily rare. Thousands claim the title but precious few can really walk the walk. If and when you find the right one, pay them exceptionally well.

    Learn to build a team of people you trust to do the job you are paying them for.

    Finally, I have a friend - a mentor really - who has been extraordinarily successful during his life. He is retired officially, but spends his days making money for fun. He really doesn't need any more but the chase is in his blood. He laughs at the claim of a "million dollar idea". He says, "Million dollar ideas are a dime a dozen - they are literally everywhere around us all day. By and large, million dollor ideas are worthless. What is exceptionally rare is the million dollar execution..."

  59. Incorporating and taxes by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    An interesting area of tax law is how you handle assets that you take into the corporation.

    Let's say you've have a great startup idea, and you've already bought a few laptops for yourself and your crew, a fileserver or two, RAID disks, network gear, dual WAN router, desk, chairs, and other capital expenses.

    OK, now when you incorporate, you want to bring that stuff into the corporation, right? So, how is that handled? When the corporation gets stuff, it has to give something in return, right?

    Otherwise, it would be a gift, and the taxman doesn't like those, either.

    How much depreciation you get? How much depreciation does the corp get?

    There's where things get ornery.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  60. Split Income to Lower Tax Bracket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a significant other with whom you share income with, you can incorporate, "hire" your significant other, split the earnings (from consulting) in such a way that you both pay taxes in a lower tax bracket.

  61. Talk to an accountant by Fatty · · Score: 1

    Not a lawyer here, and I'm Canadian, so take this with a grain of salt.

    If you're incorporating in order to shield yourself from liability, you don't protect yourself a whole lot. If you mess up and cause damages then you're going to get sued personally as well as corporately. If you want to protect yourself from that, that's what E&O insurance/etc is for.

    The primary goal of changing your corporate structure is to pay less tax. If you're the only owner of a consulting business then I don't think you get much value here unless you're bringing in a lot of income. You'll pay tax as you take money into the corporation and pay tax as it goes from the corporation to you. At least in Canada the rates are figured such that the tax liability is about the same if you earn it through the company or directly. You have some more discretion on the expense side if you do it through a corporation.

    My personal experience is that I wrote a SaaS application and did not incorporate. I was acquired by another company and had to incorporate in order to sell everything in a tax advantageous manner. In the end it cost me a lot more to sell the company than if I'd have incorporated. If I were to build another product (not consulting) I would definitely incorporate from the onset.

    My first piece of advice would be to talk to an accountant. It'll cost you a few hundred bucks, but it'll be well worth it. I know the US has several options for companies and if you do it the wrong way you're just making it worse on yourself.

  62. When did Facebook & Google incorporate? by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    A useful question might be: When did Facebook, Google, and other startups incorporate?

    Marc Zuckerburg, at one point, was just hacking PHP in his dorm. So, at what point did he incorporate? While still in the dorm? If so, how did he separate the personal and the corporate?

    Same for Page & Brin starting out in the Stanford dorms.

    And how did that affect the questions we're talking about?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  63. section 1706 of the 1986 tax reform act by CoderFool · · Score: 1

    I have been considering myself incorporating or LLCing until I remembered and dug up these following slashdot posts: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/1353223/our-low-tech-tax-code http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/02/25/1949223/independent-programmers-no-win-scenario I also read the linked articles inside these articles. The upshot I get is that independent contracting/consulting is no win scenario in taxes even if you incorporate or LLC yourself. But it seems that writing and selling your own code to an app store is workable. Don't think this tax targeting tech professionals starting and being sole employees of a business has been repealed has it? What am I missing? From your comments, most of you seem to have sole proprietership businesses and be doing fine.

  64. Oops! You got that one wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, read the US constitution. One of the responsibilities of the federal government is to establish rules of incorporation.

    Corporations have been around for a long, long time.

  65. Here is a better question by briancox2 · · Score: 0

    Because this question IS EXTREMELEY dependent upon circumstances (i.e., a spouse's income, vulnerable assets, exposure, risks involved with work) the better question is, "Who would be a good person to ask about whether I should incorporate?" My answer to that question would be an experienced financial advisor. Not slash dot.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  66. You got a job... by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

    ....reading about mobile app development?

    --
    Sorry about the mess.
  67. Partners are always at risk ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that partners are always liable for what other partners do. However incorporation limits that liability to the corporate assets. So what one partner invested into the corporation is always at risk due to the other partner's actions. It is only personal assets that are protected. I believe this is true for LLPs as well.

  68. it seems people are missing estate consequences by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    A corporation can continue to exist after you die. A sole proprietorship ends when you die. If you are only ever going to do consulting work by yourself it might not matter much to you but if you are going to have partners etc it is worth looking into.

    Not sure how it would work but I suspect a corporation would also protect your assets should you go through a divorce. If you don't own the business directly you can play some games I think where your salary gets paid after money gets retained by the business. You'd have to split your stake in the business if ordered but at least the business operating costs would get paid before distribution to the two of you, vs wife getting her half of the revenue regardless of the business investments that are needed to grow the company.

  69. You're treading on dangerous territory by Solandri · · Score: 1

    The company hiring you will likely require you to meet several conditions, including incorporation, to protect themselves. Remember that guy who flew a plane into an IRS building in Texas a couple years back? His beef with the IRS was a section of tax code which will affect you if you get laid off or quit from your primary job.

    Basically, the IRS makes it hard for a company to justify hiring a programmer as an independent consultant. If they hire you like that and the IRS determines that you're actually employed by them, they're liable for the employer's share of all your back taxes even if you've been diligently paying your self employment taxes. (Yes, your employer pays part of your FICA taxes. That's what the "self employment" tax is - when you're self-employed you get to pay both your share and the employer's share of the FICA taxes.) To avoid this possibility, most companies require contracting programmers to be employees of a hiring agency, or self incorporated with multiple sources of income. If you're not employed by someone else, or the consulting you do for them is your only job, the IRS could still find that you're an employee. And they get to pay half of your FICA back taxes.

    Right now you're spared from all this because you have another job. But if you should be laid off or quit to concentrate on this contracting work, you will become subject to this section of tax code. HR and Accounting at the company you're working for will want nothing to do with you unless you (A) find another job, or (B) incorporate and have more than one simultaneous consulting gig, or (C) incorporate with another person to form your own 2+ person "hiring agency". (The NYT article is a bit ambiguous - staffing firms are only a problem if they're only acting as job hunter for you. If you're employed by them and they're paying your employment taxes, then it's not a problem.

    The relevant terms for you to google if you want to research this more are irs section 1706 530.

  70. Oh come on by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Some of the question people ask on Ask Slashdot boggle my mind. I mean, tax advice? Are you kidding?

  71. Not worth it [Re:As soon as you have anything...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    My advice....incorporate yourself immediately!!

    My advice: don't incorporate. The added burden of accounting and paperwork way outstrips the minor benefits of incorporation unless maybe you're making over about $50,000 per year.

    First, as other mention, it limits liability for damage and creditors taking your personal possessions.

    No, it really doesn't. If you're looking for protection against, say, a lawsuit for selling a defective product, then yes; or if you plan on buying parts on credit, and aren't sure you are going to be able to pay, sure, it's good protection. But you'd said you'd be doing consulting work. It's unlikely that you would encounter any lawsuits of a type that incorporation would protect against.

    Second, this is about the ONLY way to keep more of your hard earned tax dollars. YOU can begin to write off all expenses, mileage (keep a logbook in your car to write odometer settings, easy documentation).

    Nonsense. File a schedule C; that allows you to deduct all those things on your personal taxes.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  72. Maybe. by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

    Incorporating is a no brainer. You always want to have some legal padding between you and the job, if possible. Sometimes though, they make you get liability insurance. It can be very expensive.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
  73. Makes sense to me .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    When I had my own side business doing computer service and consulting, I never followed through with incorporating (despite hearing many times it was the "thing to do"). Honestly, as a one-man operation, I never really saw the clear value to it, vs. the extra paperwork, higher chance of an IRS tax audit, and up-front expenses to get it done.

    Even as a sole proprietorship, you're entitled to quite a few tax advantages simply by having your own business. (And yes, you have to meet a few basic qualifications so the IRS doesn't consider you a hobby instead. That would include keeping proof that you behaved like a legitimate business, including having business cards and receipts for advertising expenses.) But there's no need to incorporate just to write off such things as new computers/printers/monitors/paper/ink/office furniture as business expenses. You can write off postage used to mail out any advertising or marketing materials too (and the cost of the envelopes you purchased to put it in). If you keep mileage records accurately, you can write that percentage of use/depreciation of your vehicle too. And if you designate a portion of your primary residence to your business/office, you get a home office deduction on it as well. (That one can be a pain though, since a lot of people really don't maintain a portion of their place exclusively for business use. If you're ever audited on one of those home office deductions, an IRS agent could very well drop by and ask to inspect the area. Your kid leaving toys on the floor in there or something could pose an unexpected problem....)

    Like others said, incorporating seems to only really shield you from one of your CO-WORKERS screwing things up in some manner. As a sole business owner, I can't see how it would protect anything of yours beyond the relatively few items you itemized as 100% used for the business. (If you screwed up and you're the sole proprietor of the business, the person wronged will still go after you regardless... Incorporating might keep them from seizing your office furniture and computers, but they could still get a financial judgement against you that forced you to liquidate assets like your new living room set or flat screen TV to pay it off!)

  74. Re:If you plan to do it as your primary source of. by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

    I.e. If your consulting brings in $160k in a year (and ignoring all the costs to you involved) and you give yourself that money, you could pay yourself a salary of $80k a year and pay yourself $80k in distributions. So you pay payroll taxes on 80k and you don't on the other 80k. 80k is a reasonable salary for most types of jobs (in this example - a software engineer.)

    Yeah, the thing is that payroll taxes stop after about $107,000. So in many professions the difference between a reasonable salary and the top of the payroll tax isn't enough for this to be a good reason to do anything.

    --
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  75. incorporating is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did this 5-6 years ago, but prices may have changed.

    made an s-corp for $400 with corporate.com
    made an llc online with the state for $125. just some button clicks

    more accounting responsibility with s-corp. probably need an account. llc is tricky when you have w-2 and 1099 income.
    as a contractor i made the s-corp because many contract companies wont work with 1 person llc. too many people have abused the 1099 contracting and treating contractors like employeese that there is risk of an IRS audit. So I made the S-corp. I got alot more tax deductions too. but there is more work.

    llc taxes are just like 1099. so if your jsut getting a 1099 doing contracting, just use that. i dont think an llc helps you

    whatever you do, dont go pay a lawyer alot of money to make this stuff.they are just stealing your money

  76. As soon as it saves you more money than it costs. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    As a rule of thumb, you should incorporate as soon as it saves you more money than it costs. That is, counting your additional personal time spent maintaing the corp. as expense, of course.

    I presume the rules are simular to Germany where you have to file anual reports and stuff. Maintaining proper bookkeeping for a corp. costs money and/or time. Here in Germany it's freelance (roughly 500€/year of your time and/or money) vs. small business (Gewerbe, roughly 500€ to 800€ per year of your time and money, not counting extra taxes) vs. Ltd. (roughly about 1000€ to 1500€ per year, depending on some details). Founding a GmbH (german Ltd.) costs another 3000€ to begin with and takes a few months, but that's just your typical German burocracy and lawyer-lobby bullshit. If your LLC or something simular is anywhere near the costs in the UK, there's nothing to be worried about in that camp for you.

    Generally, if tax savings and the usual legal bookkeeping tricks you can do with the corp are a measurable benefit and make up the cost of maintaining it for sure, then it's time to incorporate. If your business is growing you'll have to do it anyway - might as well start with the learning experience right away. If it's stable in size, then you'll save a few bucks and have a learning experience.

    Find out how much bookeeping costs for a corp - it does cost more, because it's more work (Duh.).
    Do also look at the laws in place where you live and only make the switch when you're sure you have a graps of things even if the bookkeeper screws it up for you. It's your ass on the line if they pin you down for fraud or something simular just because you missed a due-date for a report or something, so do some research of your local laws before incorporating.

    Other than that, if you can move around income and revenue and save taxes and shit and there's a safe bet that you'll end up cheaper in the end, go for corp.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  77. It may already be too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The principal advantage of incorporating is the protection of your personal assets from liabilities incurred by the work you do. One of the most basic requirements of maintaining this "corporate veil" as it is called is to maintain completely separate financial records, not commingle personal and business funds or property, and have a separate, distinct place that is for exclusive use of your business. This CAN be a home office, but that is not recommended, because it is all to easy to borrow a stapler from your home office, which would technically violate separation and allow a suing counsel to pierce your corporate veil, exposing all of your personal assets and holdings to liability.

    Either operate as a sole proprietor and get a business insurance policy that is larger than a few times the value of your gross assets plus all future income, or incorporate and establish a real business BEFORE you do any work for your client or accept payment in fee for service (and get a smaller liability insurance policy that will be more affordable).

  78. Remember, your concept applies equally by Quila · · Score: 1

    Unions are corporations, and they then shouldn't be able to petition the government.

    The basic problem here is that corporations are made of people, and people have rights. So you're telling a group of people that as soon as they get together for a common purpose, they suddenly lose those rights. Let's say a group of like-minded people want to get together for a cause, let's say against eating kittens. They decide to incorporate to make things easier concerning their pooled money in a bank account, etc. But now, under your rule, they can't use that money to run ads against a politician who advocates eating kittens.

  79. tax audit bait by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Probably not going to pass an audit if you are going to tell the IRS that IT employees make $38K a year. Try documenting that with some professional society survey and the like. The IRS will use their own numbers for salaries if you cant give convincing documentation.

    1. Re:tax audit bait by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I have my monthly 'bill' and tax papers for it.
      Perhaps I should have used the Euro sign instead of the Dollar sign, but for the sake of the argument it is no difference.
      The question is not what "I make" but what the whole conglomerate of myself as a private person and my company makes.
      There is nothing wrong in paying me a sallary from which I can comfortably live and which is below the higher ranges of IT consultants. Exactly that is the point about founding a LLC etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  80. Re:Not worth it [Re:As soon as you have anything.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    I disagree. And if you're in IT and consulting full time, you're bill rate should be WELL over $50K / yr.....if you're doing anything full time, worth while, and are good, you're going to be looking at over 6 figures.

    And that paperwork isn't that bad....again, have a CPA to help/do it for you.

    To each his own, but anyone I've worked with in IT contracting....they found the "S" corp is the best way, and it keeps you from being doubled taxed like a regular C corp does...ESPECIALLY if you are a one man operation. The S corp. allows it to come through on your personal taxes.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  81. Deductions & Don't use a CPA by dcraw999 · · Score: 1

    Taking lots of business-related deductions on a schedule-c supposedly makes you more likely to get audited. However, your earnings & deductions under a corporate tax return are small relative to the universe of corporate returns making an audit highly unlikely. So bottom line - if you plan on taking business deductions, go the corporate route. You can probably save enough going the s-corp route by taking some of your comp in dividends to pay for the "accountant" person doing your corporate tax return & quarterly stuff. Look for small business accountants who are not CPAs - you'll get the same work done and pay less. You really don't need a CPA when you're small. Call around and tell them your expected revenues and that you'll want them to prepare "all the quarterlies" and the corporate tax return. You can do your own personal taxes by dropping the k-1 income from the corp onto your 1040. My guess is that you could find someone to do that for about $500/yr.

  82. Re:Not worth it [Re:As soon as you have anything.. by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

    if you're in IT and consulting full time

    He's not.

    --
    I hate grammar Nazi's.
  83. Corporations are NOT people by rsborg · · Score: 1

    If citizens have rights when acting individually, why should those rights disappear when they act collectively?

    Because there is no analog for, say, the death penalty.

    Ultimately, a corporation is a legal entity used to streamline taxes, and provide an equitable means of shared ownership for larger than a handful of people. It is not a person, as it doesn't shit, fuck, eat or (most importantly) die.

    Having things that are given the rights without any of the downsides is a sure way to put an exploit into the workings of our economy and government. I could easily relate half the things wrong in our country with our over-corporatized, limited liability behemoths who (aside from that pesky regulation) pretty much steamroll over the citizenry (the other half are due to side-effects of basic human nature) and pay their costs - someone in the organization having been tasked with the cost/benefit and realizing the benefits of steamrolling the public outweigh the costs.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  84. Re:Not worth it [Re:As soon as you have anything.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Even if not.

    Incorporating costs virtually nothing, and you can benefit from it immediately. Hell, I wrote off nothing but expenses for the first 3-4 years with virtually NO income coming in....

    You don't have to worry much about the paper work till serious money starts coming in.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  85. Yesterday by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    If you're doing work for anyone you don't trust 110%, you want to be incorporated or have some other type of limited liability. Otherwise, they can sue you and put all of your personal assets in jeopardy. Incorporating is incredibly simple (at least here in Florida). You just fill out the online form with the state, pay them about $100, register with the IRS and you're done. Put everything in the company's name, if you sign any contracts, make sure the corporation's name appears next to your signature. Do all your business related banking in a separate account in the corporation's name.

    The only real difference is you need to keep business and personal finances separate, and you'll have to file a tax return for the corporation. An accountant can help you with this.

  86. Cost Benefit to Inc by io.sys · · Score: 1

    My accountant told me that you should incorporate when you can see a savings on your income from taking dividends versus payroll. For example if you make $30K a year from this gig, then you can pay yourself a decent salary, say $17.5K and then you can take the rest as dividends at a lower tax rate. My accountant suggested the break even point is usually $20K for people, since there are costs and time associated with doing payroll, etc. Liability is also a cosideration