View Single Post
Unread 05-20-2010, 06:56 PM   #15
Dingodile
Found some matches.
 
Join Date: 03-18-09
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

I'd like to second everything bander said (I'm tax attorney in California) and also emphasize Jet2's subtle point, however, this is a fairly complex question which requires a much more comprehensive answer than I can provide here. Nevertheless, here's my two cents.

S-Corps are mostly over sold and the only real tax savings provided by a S-Corp is via use of distributions not subject to self employment tax. In my humble opinion this is a very risky strategy when the only true employee of the company is also its sole owner (I'm assuming that you have no other employees, Double C). An LLC would be a much more conservative (read appropriate) tax classification if you are the only member, also then you would not need to prepare an additional tax return. You would only include the business on your Schedule C.

With respect to liability limitation and asset protection, there's no significant difference between a LLC and a Corporation (at least in California). Additionally, there's no difference between a S and C Corp. when it comes to liability as these are merely federal tax classifications and have nothing to do with liability and debtor/creditor law, which is determined from state to state.

Finally, no business entity will protect the individual who causes the harm. A business entity protects the owners of the entity from losses caused by the entity's employees. When such a loss occurs, both the entity and the employee are sued, however, the employee typically pays nothing as the insurance owned by the entity steps in and handles the claim. So if the employee who causes the harm also happens to be the owner of the company, then the owner will have no protection. Long winded answer...buy liability insurance.
Dingodile is offline   Reply With Quote