Can somebody please explain to me the differences between a corporation

>>1856382
sure, but it's easier to just post this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability_company

>>1856382
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what%27s+the+difference+between+corporation+and+llc%3F

you lazy fuck

If you can't read that for yourself your business is doomed to never succeed.

>>1856382
LLC= Betafag
Corporation=Bateman

any other questions?

>>1856382
also unless this is homework the answer doesn't matter. If you have to ask you're not ready for either one. /biz/ has this backwards idea about business, "If I build it they will come."

this isn't how business actually works. Here's the usual chain of events:
>working full time, dabble in side business
>grow side business, quit job, become self-employed
>now a sole-proprietor like over 90% of businesses
>liability handled via insurance, tax structure doesn't matter
>grow business, employ others
>still a sole proprietor
>making millions gross per year
>still a sole proprietor
>seek funding to expand or just stay afloat
>capitalists want an owning interest in the company
>now you NEED to form an LLC or Corporation
>take some of your multimillion dollar operating budget and hire a fucking lawyer to tell you how to file.

So it's a bit like asking which private jet is best for you- if you're ever in the position where you need to know, someone WILL tell you. At the very least you need a company that makes money and has more than 2 owning partners for either one to do any good in most states.

Corps get taxed on their profits. Then the profits get distributed to investors as dividends and taxed again. An LLC, the profits get distributed to the investors and then taxed at the individual level.

>>1856412

>not shielding your assets from god's chosen in an LLC

How does it feel to be a cuck?

>>1856417
>An LLC, the profits get distributed to the investors and then taxed at the individual level.
this is incorrect.
an LLC has a choice to be taxed on profits as a corporation or not taxed like a sole-proprietorship.

this choice is one of the primary benefits to an LLC, but single-owner LLC's that are taxed as sole proprietorships are usually not treated as legal LLC's in court.

>>1856421
1. insurance is a more effective shield
2. sole-owner LLC's designed just to avoid liability aren't legal. Judges treat them as sole-proprietorships.

Get a lawyer.

>>1856424
>single-owner LLC's that are taxed as sole proprietorships are usually not treated as legal LLC's in court
This is false. Recognition of the corporate separateness depends on many factors, but tax treatment isn't one of them. Same for S Corps and Professional Corporations.

>>1856454
>Recognition of the corporate separateness depends on many factors, but tax treatment isn't one of them.
recognition requires the LLC to be set up for some reason other than JUST liability avoidance.

the easiest reason to prove is tax benefits. So if you're not doing it for the tax benefits, why are you doing it? This is why the veil is usually pierced in these cases. You need to show a compelling reason for the legal structure aside from JUST liability.

>>1856382
LLC = you own a company that cannot be bought or sold easily

s-corp - you own a company that can sell shares to citizen persons.

c-corp - you own a company that can sell shares to persons and corps

They all just shield you from liability.

If you don't think you're going to expand at exponential rates to the point of having to sell shares to obtain capital, you should probs go with an LLC.
Unless you have a partner you do not trust.
Then you want a corp because the money HAS to go through the corps bank accounts and cannot go through a personal

>>1856470
"JUST" in caps because avoiding liability isn't a disqualifying reason for a single person having an LLC, but it can't be the ONLY reason.

>>1856470
>recognition requires the LLC to be set up for some reason other than JUST liability avoidance
Again, not true. You can't pierce the veil just because someone sought to take advantage of the existing laws. Limited liability is a function of corporate separateness, and the intent of the founder(s) is irrelevant.

>This is why the veil is usually pierced in these cases
Again, wrong. (Are you reading from a law text book or something, because your real world knowledge is pretty poor.) Veil piercing and alter ego determinations happen when the founders/officers fail to maintain requisite corporate separateness. The reason why it happens somewhat frequently in single-member LLCs is because its expensive to maintain the corporate trappings: separate office, separate phone numbers, separate accounts, etc. People run their LLCs like sole proprietorships, and then they lose the limited liability.

Also, you're going to have problems if someone can prove actual intent to defraud or to shield assets after a liability has attached to the assets. But those are unusual cases.

But simply have the intent to get the benefits of limited liability is NOT grounds to break corporate separateness. You've said this incorrectly three time in this thread. Please stop.

Corporation [C not S]
- Can issue preferred and common stock
- Limited liability
- Foreign investors permitted
- Double taxation [not S]
S type doesn't allow preferred stock or foreign investors
LLC
- Can't issue stock
- Foreign investors not permitted

>>1856470
>recognition requires the LLC to be set up for some reason other than JUST liability avoidance

And just so you know that I'm right:

"It is not improper to form a corporation for the purpose of limiting the shareholder’s liability, for that is the traditional reason for the corporate entity in the first instance." Zubik v. Zubik, 384 F.2d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 988 (1968).

>>1856600
Oh, and you can't have more than 100 investors in S type corp.

>>1856382
First 4 posts:
> lol OP you faggot, can't read, don't understand, not gonna tell you, why do you care, you'll never have either
rest of the thread:
>no one on /biz/ knowing either/giving incorrect information

Never ask anything real on this board. If it's anything close to a real business, /biz/ will shun it because it's actual work. Just talk about meme stocks, shit coins, and how to ebay, and you'll make it here.

>>1856594
>But simply have the intent to get the benefits of limited liability is NOT grounds to break corporate separateness.
I never said it was.
I said if it's the ONLY reason the entity exists it won't work.

and we're discussing LLC's, not corporations.

>>1856603
again, an LLC is not a corporation.

you may indeed be right about corporations. I don't know. I've only ever read case law regarding LLC's.

>>1856726
>>1856729
Jesus kid, stop being a faggot. If you had gone to law school, you'd know that the legal precedent applies unless you can show grounds to distinguish it. And since there are no grounds to distinguish LLCs and corporations in terms of their entitlement to limited liability, the case law controls.

Now you have three choices: (1) apologize for being a piss-poor amateur internet lawyer, (2) disappear in shame, or (3) provide citations to all this "case law" you claim to know. I'll be waiting.

>>1856859
>doesn't know an LLC isn't a corp
>gets really angry when someone tells him
ok, thanks for the laugh

>>1856901
I never said a LLC was a corporation, child. What I said is that the laws of corporations apply to LLCs in the context of limited liability.

Fuck, you're literally retarded.

>>1856912
>the laws of corporations apply to LLCs in the context of limited liability.
agreed, except in cases where a sole-owner forms an LLC specifically to avoid liability, in which case I think we both know judges don't usually allow it. Or if we don't you need to read more.

>>1856918
>except in cases where a sole-owner forms an LLC specifically to avoid liability
Point me to a single case or a single journal article that states this, fuckwit.

>>1856925
I don't need to, your lawyer can inform you.

Furthermore we can agree that liability protections of the corporate veil don't protect you from most liability you personally incur on behalf of the corporation. Particularly if that liability involves a crime or negligence as most liability does. There are literally thousands of cases where corporate officers have gone to prison or lost assets because of their actions on behalf of their businesses.

Likewise the reverse is true- you don't need a corporation to avoid liability for the actions of your partners or employees. I can't personally be sued for the negligence of my employees or partners in a company I don't personally run, EVEN WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF A CORPORATION. This is the law, and you don't need a corporation to apply it to yourself.

If you run a corporation you own, are very probably liable for any damage it does. If you don't run a sole-proprietorship you are very likely not responsible for any of it's liability.

Personal liability rests on those that run the business, corporation or not.

>>1856949
>I don't need to
Rest of blog spam post disregarded unread. You're a massive faggot, and you should never post on this board again.

>>1856949
Sorry but he is right. If the individual runs the corporation or LLC while observing the proper formalities he is not liable. You are talking about people who comingle funds or do other things to breach the corporate veil
[hence "limited liability" company or LLC]

>>1856952
>Rest of blog spam post disregarded unread.
I can't force you to learn.
screaming that I'm wrong or demanding citations doesn't make me wrong.

in reality the law varies by state and only your lawyer can tell you how it really works. But you're grossly mistaken if you think an LLC you run protects you from your own liability. That isn't the purpose of an LLC or a corporation. They exist to protect you from the liability of others, not yourself.

As any lawyer can tell you.

>>1856959
>If the individual runs the corporation or LLC while observing the proper formalities he is not liable.
I never disagreed with this.

I am merely pointing out that it's much less likely that a sole-owner is following those forms.

an LLC that acts like a sole proprietorship will be treated like one.

having a separate office and bank account means nothing, most sole proprietors have this.

>>1856963
Again, I'm not reading your blog kid.

The law is what the statutes say and what the courts rule ... not what you feel in your heart the outcome should be. At least two people in this thread who actually know the law have told you that you're wrong. It's time for you to go.

>>1856974
>The law is what the statutes say and what the courts rule ... not what you feel in your heart the outcome should be
on that we can agree.

ask a fucking lawyer.

>It's time for you to go.
if people were banned for being wrong you'd be long gone.

>>1856967
>I am merely pointing out that it's much less likely that a sole-owner is following those forms
Move the goalposts much, kid? Earlier in the thread you argued that LLC can't get limited liability if that the sole purpose for their creation. When proven wrong, you've suddenly changed your argument. Kek.

>having a separate office and bank account means nothing
Actually it means a lot, according to the judges that have actually considered the issue. Separate offices put the public on notice that they're dealing with the corporation not the entity, and separate bank accounts segregates the corporate assets from personal accounts.

Every post you make you say more dumb things. This is actually getting entertaining.

>>1856976
>ask a fucking lawyer
>implying I'm not one

>>1856986
>Separate offices put the public on notice that they're dealing with the corporation not the entity, and separate bank accounts segregates the corporate assets from personal accounts.
then every solely owned DBA has the same protections as an LLC without the filing fee.

>Earlier in the thread you argued that LLC can't get limited liability if that the sole purpose for their creation.
this is fact. A decent lawyer WILL argue that the LLC is a pseudonym for a sole proprietorship and they have usually won.

>>1856993
>then every solely owned DBA has the same protections as an LLC without the filing fee.
or to put it another way-

you don't need to file an LLC, you just need separate bank accounts and offices, which most sole-proprietors already have.

>>1857001
The way I understand it both the separate bank account and office as well as the filing are necessary

But it is true that reckless behavior can leave officers personally liable

>>1856993
>then every solely owned DBA has the same protections as an LLC without the filing fee
Do you understand how logic and reasoning work? Because you just made the most illogical and stupid extension of my point possible. You must be a great disappointment to your parents.

Anyway ... DBAs aren't required to have separate bank accounts, or separate offices, or follow any of the corporate niceties because they don't get limited liability. Period.

>this is fact. A decent lawyer WILL argue that the LLC is a pseudonym for a sole proprietorship and they have usually won
Again, point to a single case, or a single journal, that supports this argument. Because I've already cited to a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (a decision tacitly upheld by the Supreme Court) that says THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE. So the unless you happen to be Justice Thomas and are giving us insight into an unreleased opinion of the high court reversing 50 years of legal precedent, YOU ARE WRONG.

>>1857001
>you don't need to file an LLC
Yes you do, you fucking mongoloid.

Jesus, make an effort.

>>1857005
>you just made the most illogical and stupid extension of my point possible.
this is called an reductio ad absurdum.

here's how it works:
>you make claim
>I extend claim to its absurd conclusion
>reader can extrapolate based on absurdity that your initial claim is false

you pretend to be a lawyer but aren't familiar with the form?

>you argue that the LLC is protected by its legal separation
>I point out that DBA's are equally separated
>we both know they're not equally liable
>the reader may assume that your reasons for exclusion are false

>they don't get limited liability. Period.
exactly my point. So separate bank accounts and offices don't affect the exclusion.

>>1857005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

>>1857014
The limited liability is only extended in so far as the LLC exists separate from the individual who founds / runs the LLC. The separate bank accounts and offices are necessary but not sufficient for limited liability

>>1856859
>I'll be waiting.
Not that guy, but fuck man you might as well just say "If you reply back you're just proving my point!" and other tumblr-tier shit arguments.

>>1857018
>The separate bank accounts and offices are necessary but not sufficient for limited liability
bingo!

>>1857020
Look kid, I asked him to provide a legal citation for his argument, just as I did. Asking for proof in an argument isn't "tumbler-tier."

Getting triggered and making posts like your is tumbler-tier.

>>1857014
This is what happens when internet kiddies try to argue law with a real lawyer.

Keep on moving the goalposts, changing your arguments, and citing Wikipedia, kid. Tell me more about how your feelings matter more than case law. It's not often that things on /biz/ make me laugh, so you're a welcome reprieve.

>>1857030
>a real lawyer.
>doesn't recognize the reductio
I doubt you've done one year in college.\

either way, dear reader, seek the advice of a real lawyer.
pay the fee, it's 100% deductible.

>>1857030
>kid
See that kind of condescending attitude gets you nowhere.

>>1857034
>See that kind of condescending attitude gets you nowhere.
It got you to respond, proving that you were indeed triggered like a bitch.

Look kid, this thread stopped being serious as soon as the other fuckwit started shitposting with his made-up legal theories. Every time there's a halfway serious thread on biz, some retard like him (or you) comes in to shit the bed. Stop taking everything so seriously, Sally.

>>1857034
n o t h i n g
p e r s o n e l l

>>1857038
>The corporate veil is usually pierced if the creditor can show that the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to provide liability protection for its owners or the company was practically inseparable from or an alter ego of its owners.

>http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personally-liable-llc-corporate-debt-bankruptcy.html

>>1857038
>triggered like a bitch
>some retard like him (or you)
>Stop taking everything so seriously, Sally.
You sure it's me who's taking things way too seriously?
>>1857039
IT WAS AN ILLUSION

>>1857061
lol'd out loud

pasta or did you just type that up?

>>1857038
>>1857048
/rekt

>>1857055
>You sure it's me who's taking things way too seriously?
I dunno. You jumped into a 4chan thread for the sole purpose of complaining about my "tone." On 4chan. My "tone." On 4chan.

Let that sink in, Nancy.

>>1857074
Not a case, and not a journal. Therefore, not governing law.

Also
>the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to
>LLC was a shell
>shell
>shell
>shell

Words matter. Shell corporations (or LLCs) aren't legitimate by definition, regardless of the intent of the founder.

[ ] #rekt
[X] #not rekt

>>1857078
>Shell corporations (or LLCs) aren't legitimate by definition, regardless of the intent of the founder.
yes, you got it!

if anon registers an LLC for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from the liability incurred by their own actions-

THAT is a shell corporation. it isn't legitimate.

corporations don't exist to skirt criminal law or consumer and employee protections.

if you do bad things you'll get sued, no matter what type of legal entity you own.

>>1856635
OP here, best post after reading the thread.
>Just talk about meme stocks, shit coins, and how to ebay, and you'll make it here.
You should write a book, and host seminars on how to make it big in /biz/.

>>1857083
>THAT is a shell corporation
Sigh. No its not. A shell corporation is one that's insufficiently capitalized for its chartered purposes. Intent is irrelevant.

Keep trying kid.

>>1857086
>Intent is irrelevant.
>if the creditor can show that the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to provide liability protection for its owners
>intent

>>1857086
intent is difficult to prove but easy to disprove
that's my only point.

if you want protection have an obvious and easy to prove intent.

tax benefit is the easiest one for the single owner.

>>1857094
The key word is "shell." Intent is irrelevant. I explained this already. Please keep up. I know you're slow, but I shouldn't have to repeat myself just for your benefit.

>>1857098
>intent is difficult to prove but easy to disprove
Not really. There are entire fields of law dedicated to proving and disproving intent.

I know it seems very confusing to someone like you. That's ok, really. That's why you pay people like me. If it was easy, people like you could do it.

>>1857109
>I explained this already
you stated that a shell corporation is insufficiently funded

this isn't true.
>There are entire fields of law dedicated to proving and disproving intent.
yes, and if you have no alternative to criminal intent you're going to suffer by those fields.

>>1857112
Wrong, again.

"A shell corporation is a company which serves as a vehicle for business transactions without having any significant assets or operations."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shell-corporation/

See anything in there about intent? Nope.

>criminal intent
Um, retard, we're discussing civil matters, not criminal.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

>>1857115
>they are sometimes used illegitimately, such as to disguise business ownership from law enforcement or the public.

you're fun to argue with but we both know you're not a lawyer.

and that's the ultimate answer:
ask your lawyer.

>>1857128
>they are sometimes used illegitimately, such as to disguise business ownership from law enforcement or the public.
So are legitimate non-shell corporations. What's you're point?

Just kidding, we both know you don't have a point. You're just a 14-year old shitposting. That's ok, I'm having fun mocking you, and businesses are going to be closed tomorrow where I live, so I can mock you all night.

>>1857133
>What's you're point?
that the difference between legal and illegal shell corporations is intent.

so ask your lawyer.

>where I live
holy shit, I've been arguing US law with a foreigner. lol

>>1857137
>that the difference between legal and illegal shell corporations is intent.
No its not. Bad intent is not a crime nor a tort.

>I've been arguing US law with a foreigner
Wow, you really are a child! Go read the news kid.

>>1857140
>Bad intent is not a crime nor a tort
>In criminal law, intent is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional, as opposed to strict liability, crime.
have a good evening, 'lawyer.'

>>1857143
An element of a crime is not a crime. In America, we don't punish people for their intent without an actual action. Thought-crime may exist in Orwellian novels, but not in the United States (yet).

Honest question: are you older or younger than 16?

>>1857146
>In America, we don't punish people for their intent without an actual action.
indeed.

but intent is necessary to prove most crime.

>are you older or younger than 16?
I'm 45 years old. I own a business that has made more than you'll make in your life. I employ lawyers on permanent retainer. I know you're not one. I know I'm not one either.

>>1857150
>but intent is necessary to prove most crime.
True, with exceptions, Too bad we're discussing civil matters, though. Also, too bad you don't know the difference.

>I'm 45 years old.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA,
> I own a business that has made more than you'll make in your life.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
>I employ lawyers on permanent retainer.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Shit man, stop, you're killing me with the role playing. Whoo, lad! Good stuff...

>>1857153
>Too bad we're discussing civil matters, though
then admit that no corporation will protect you from your own liability for criminal matters,

and most personal liability results from your own crime via either intent or negligence,

so an LLC or corporation doesn't protect you from most of your own liability,

and we'll be done here.

>>1857158
>then admit that no corporation will protect you from your own liability for criminal matters,
What the literal fuck are you talking about now? You didn't just move the goalposts now .. you fucking teleported them to another world! I guess when you know you're outclassed in an argument , move, move, move those goalposts!

>and most personal liability results from your own crime
Um, liability is a word used in civil cases not criminal. In criminal cases you are culpable, not liable. Go ask all those lawyers you have on retainer. Kek.
>so an LLC or corporation doesn't protect you from most of your own liability
I never said it did, and neither did anyone in this entire thread. LOL.

I'm literally choking on my beer I'm laughing so hard. Do some more roleplaying, please. Tell me more about your "business" or how much "money" you make.

>>1857162
>I never said it did, and neither did anyone in this entire thread. LOL.
then we're good.

as long as we understand that neither an LLC nor a corporation protects you from most of your own liability for acts you commit in the name of your business we're in agreement.

>>1857164
>as long as we understand that neither an LLC nor a corporation protects you from most of your own liability for acts you commit in the name of your business
This is patently false. LOL.
>we're in agreement
You and I will never be in agreement about anything, ever. You're literally incapable of understanding this stuff even when it get spoonfed to you. You must drive your teachers crazy.

Ok, we've established that you're full of shit on all topics involving law. Let's talk more about this businessman (or woman ... I don't judge) persona of yours.

>>1857166
>This is patently false.
you yourself agreed to it.

we both know managers can go to prison and lose everything they own for criminal acts done for a business.

we both know most liability arises from criminal negligence or intent.

so perhaps you may learn that a manager doesn't cease to be a manager just because they're also an owner.

hiding behind a corporation doesn't relieve you of your liability as a manager.

>>1857171
>you yourself agreed to it.
No I didn't. Lawyers don't make legal statements with terms like "most of your own liability". It's too imprecise and not an accurate statement of the law. It's a bullshit statement, and clients (real clients ... not roleplaying clients) are too smart to play for bullshit advice.

>we both know managers can go to prison and lose everything they own for criminal acts done for a business.
We both know the sky is blue. Got any other non sequiturs?

>we both know most liability arises from criminal negligence or intent.
Actually, "we" know that ZERO liability arises from criminal negligence because liability is a civil term, not a criminal term. Also "we" know that zero liability or culpability comes from intent because intent is not punishable at law. LOL.

>hiding behind a corporation doesn't relieve you of your liability as a manager.
Managers don't have liability. Corporations have liability, in certain cases. And individuals have liability, in certain cases. Sometimes both.

Again, words matter.

Now please stop with the legal stuff. It's boring to correct you all the time. Tell us more about this amazing bizness you run and all the lawyers you have on speed dial....

>>1857178
>Lawyers don't make legal statements with terms like "most of your own liability"
true, but lawyers in the US can't legally say they're lawyers online without establishing a client/attorney relationship.

so we both know you're not a lawyer.

>Managers don't have liability.
look into mining law where numerous managers and owners have gone to prison for negligence. OSHA has similar precedents.
>Corporations have liability, in certain cases.
the law varies. it really depends where you live and what you did.

again, the reader is advised to seek actual legal counsel.

>>1857182
>lawyers in the US can't legally say they're lawyers online without establishing a client/attorney relationship
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Did you read that on reddit or something? Ooops, I guess I'm your lawyer now. AHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Oh god, seriously, I'm laughing so much the laptop is bouncing around! Thanks, honestly. This is better than improve!

Now, please, please, please, continue the roleplaying schtick. That's bound to be equally hilarious!

>>1857184
if you were a lawyer you'd notice I only respond to your arguments of substance.

counter the legal points or pass. so far you're just passing.

>>1857184
http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/solo_lawyer_ethics_attorney_client_relationship.html

>>1857191
this legal advice has no pertinence to the thread

because nobody here actually believes you're a lawyer.

>>1857189
>if you were a lawyer you'd notice I only respond to your arguments of substance.
No you haven't. You've been shitposting for the last hour. Either that, or you're honestly retarded. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is a comedy routine.

>>1857191
HAHAHAHHA. I can cite a thousand articles that discuss the potential dangers of online communications for lawyers. You do know we receive mandatory ethics training, right?

But if you think I'm you're lawyer because of this "conversation" that's cool. I'll be your lawyer. Seriously, you can retain me. Just post your name, address, and email in the thread and I'll get you a retainer letter ASAP. No? You won't do it? Awwww..... I was gonna get rich from such a successful bizznessman like you!

>>1857195
>You've been shitposting for the last hour
No response to the precedent of mining managers and corporate owners going to prison for the negligence of their corporations.

as expected.

if you were a lawyer I wouldn't have to teach you this stuff. I'm no lawyer and this is basic knowledge taught to business owners in OSHA/MSHA classes.

>>1857196
Sorry, but now that we've established a magical attorney-client relationship, I can't discuss your legal matters in public. Someone with so much experience with attorneys would know the rules of the attorney-client privilege.

By the way, I haven't received your retainer check yet. Please pay immediately, or I will avail myself of all available remedies.

>>1857199
we both know you're not a lawyer.

do you want to discuss the law or do you concede defeat?

jk, I don't see this as anything either of us can win. The law doesn't change based on what you or I think of it.

bottom line: only a fool trusts an LLC to protect them from their own foolishness.

>>1857202
I'm happy to discuss the law. That's what you hired me for.

>I don't see this as anything either of us can win
>he doesn't realize he lost 2 hours ago
AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1857204
I made you feel like an idiot and for that I apologize.

you made yourself look like an idiot and you'll have to square that with yourself eventually.

>>1857207
>gets mocked for hours
>gets told he's wrong by multiple people
>every argument refuted with citations
>thinks he won anything
KEK. You're a prize, kid. Seriously. If this is a routine, it's fucking hilarious.

Oh, and I almost forgot your roleplaying attempt. "I'm a rich, rich businessman with many lawyers and so much wealth."

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>>1857211
https://www.fisherphillips.com/Workplace-Safety-and-Health-Law-Blog/Is-OSHA-Going-to-Put-You-in-Jail
http://www.safetynewsalert.com/new-efforts-to-send-managers-to-jail-for-workplace-fatalities-osha-violations/
http://blog.mtssafety.com/index.php/2015/08/14/jail-time-for-owners-managers/
>and thousands of other results.

don't trust your LLC to protect you from yourself. That's not what it's there for.

>>1857217
YAY!! RANDOM LINKS TO THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAD! OSHA REGULATIONS! ADMINISTRATIVE LAW! YAY!!

C'mon kid, do the roleplaying stuff more. Please.

>>1857221
>OSHA REGULATIONS! ADMINISTRATIVE LAW!
>no liability to see here, folks

you're cute but you're finished.

>>1857223
You seem to have strayed REALLY far from your argument that you can't get limited liability from a LLC if that was your intent in forming the LLC. If you want to discuss that topic, I'll discuss that topic. Period.

Either that or do more roleplay.

Those are the choices, sparky. Pick one.

>>1857228
>You seem to have strayed REALLY far from your argument that you can't get limited liability from a LLC if that was your intent in forming the LLC.
>The corporate veil is usually pierced if the creditor can show that the corporation or LLC was a shell created only to provide liability protection for its owners

I've moved past that.
you were wrong, I don't need to gloat.

>>1857231
>I've moved past that.
Why? Because I posted a court citation that proved you were 100% wrong? Don't let that stop you. Logic and reason are clearly not your strengths, so keep going kid.

Or the roleplay.

>I hope its the roleplay.

>>1857233
>a court citation
lawyers call it a "precedent"
just trying to help you with your LARP. If you're going to pretend you have to get the language right.

>>1857236
HAHAHHAHAHA. Actually lawyers call it a citation because I posted a citation, i.e., the formal reference to the case that allows anyone to find the decision.

Precedent refers to all case decisions that are relevant to the topic.

You were only 50% wrong here. Congrats!

>>1857239
>Precedent refers to all case decisions that are relevant to the topic.
lol
would you say the last relevant decision regarding LLC's was made in 1968?

32 YEARS BEFORE LLC'S EXISTED?

you're a moron.

>>1857248
>would you say the last relevant decision regarding LLC's was made in 1968
I never said it was the last decision. I cited it because its the most important decision on the topic on intent in forming a corporate entity, is still valid precedent, and was easy to cut-and-paste from one of my client memos.

See, you keep trying to make up facts and I keep knocking you down. Every time.

I'm actually impressed at your fortitude. A normal person who got mocked as much as you have would start to feel self-conscious or embarrassed. But you're just so clueless, you don't care how stupid you sound. It's amazing, really.

Maybe it's that huge fortune of yours that gives you the confidence to be a buffoon?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>1857255
>normal person who got mocked as much as you have would start to feel self-conscious or embarrassed
I'm not mocking you.
anyone that reads through your bullshit should know by now you're useless.

and really that's my only goal. to protect anyone that cares to read. The feelings of your anonymous, insecure, 13 year old self don't matter.

>>1857258
HAHAHHAHAHA. I see what you did there, kid. You took what I wrote and then pretended you wrote it! So clever!

Tell me more about your "business" and your "fortune."

>>1857261
the irony is if we met in real life you'd be licking my asshole and I'd be wishing for your insolent attitude that you show when you don't know I'm rich.

carry on, private!

>>1857268
>you'd be licking my asshole
>you'd be licking my asshole
>you'd be licking my asshole

Whoah there Sally, I don't swing that way. Not that I judge, but you'll have to pack your fudge elsewhere.

But I like that you've started with the roleplay again. However, its not believable without more details. Step up your game.

If you don't, I'm going back to calling you a spineless cuck with no self-esteem, and we both know that makes you mad.

>>1857269
>I don't swing that way
it's amazing how many people think I do just because money.

I don't want your nose up my ass. I come here because you don't believe me, not in spite of it.

>>1857272
Boring, you spineless cuck with no self-esteem. Also, literal faggot.

Less real you ... More roleplaying. No one cares about the real you, kid.

>>1857276
>No one cares about the real you, kid.
I know. My reality is boring. You're much more interested in what you imagine.

what do you imagine a millionaire business owner is like?

I think you might even know. It's not that exciting, is it?

>>1856600
>>1856600
can you amortize proper captial expensives in both?
can you carry a corporate loss on both while taking a personal salary?

>>1857281
God, even when I call you a spineless cuck with no self-esteem the best you can do i agree with me. I've clearly broken your spirit, if you had any to begin with.

You were funnier when you were pretending to be an adult. Now its just sad and pathetic.

>>1857285
>can you carry a corporate loss on both while taking a personal salary?
why would you want to post a loss and pay taxes on your salary?

>>1857287
>I've clearly broken your spirit, if you had any to begin with.
lol
what does "spirit" have to do with making dosh?
stay poor, we'll both pretend you're a winner.

>>1856412
this is nonsense, yeah this is true for some people and situations, but alot of people need to go stright into a llc or corp, especially if they own a house they want to protect or the busniss idmeadititly requires you to hire several employees

>>1857290
better then paying taxes on both. also didferent rules about deductions, write offs, debts, etc

>>1857293
Hehe, nice try, but I'm the one with the graduate degree and the professional career. You're either a delusional 14 year old or a virgin 45 year old NEET. And your a fucking moron either way.

Tell you what, chump, you keep your life and I'll keep mine.

>>1857294
>especially if they own a house they want to protect or the busniss idmeadititly requires you to hire several employees
yes, or if they're married or have partners.

you're absolutely right. there are plenty of cases where the LLC makes sense.

they just aren't the norm. You don't make an LLC and then get married or find partners or hire managers.

>>1857298
>better then paying taxes on both
you don't pay taxes on losses whether personal or corporate.

why would you choose to pay taxes on personal gains when you could skip it? that makes no sense. That's the one case where you'd not want to claim a salary.

>>1857305
lare you saying it's better to be paid off the onwership dividends ?

>>1857315
it's better to declare a loss, roll profits over into the business, and be taxed at the capital gains rate when you sell the business 30 years from now.

ask an accountant, but corporate taxes are cheaper than personal in most cases, and capital gains are cheaper in all cases. If you can afford to not take a salary that pays off down the line. Assuming your reinvestment pays off.

>>1857317
>If you can afford to not take a salary
well duhh

>>1857341
business owners have more options.

I can live on credit for the next 30 years and then write off both the principle and interest as business expenses if I want.

Or I can draw a salary and write off most of it as "executive housing," "business transportation," and "corporate retreats" if I want to dare the IRS.

a single person can write off most of their living expenses as business expenses even if that means being driven in a Rolls, taken care of by a maid, fed by a chef, and pampered in the Seychelles.

tax law favors business owners. That's how the rich keep getting richer. LLC's are a big part of that, but let's not pretend they're necessary or that liability is the main obstacle.

>posts and deletes 8 posts, mostly replying to himself
AUTISM

>>1857415
sorry, accident.

I was drunk as fuck through this whole convo

a drunk business owner pwnt your ass.

also chivas is perfectly fine for blended scotch. at least as good as most single malts.

>chivas
Know how I know you're poor?

Jesus, why don't you kill yourself already.

File: P3140091 (1024x768).jpg (264KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1024x768px

>>1857427
I think you might enjoy this.

My whiskey is 40 years older than you and costs more than you'll save in a year.

notice the import band.

Jesus, can it possibly get more cringy in here? Fucking rednecks taking photos of their Costco liquor bottles. I'd be sad if I gave a fuck.

>>1857447
>I'd be sad if I gave a fuck.
it'd be exciting if you knew anything about whiskey

import bands stopped in 1987, meaning what I'm drinking right now (a 12 y.o. blended scotch) is at least older than 1975.

if you want to know what that bottle costs you can google it. My best price is $375 per each. There's very few left though.

I'm drinking $500 worth of scotch while laughing at you. If nothing else you're worth that much.

>whiskey
Sorry trailer trash, but the grownups drink scotch. Now get back to watching Duck Dynasty with your fat wife and stupid children. Only 46 more payments and that above-ground pool will be all yours!

>>1857455
>Sorry trailer trash, but the grownups drink scotch.
lol, is 40 year old chivas not scotch now?

to me it's scotch, to you it's something you'll never afford.

>>1857455
I don't mean to make you feel bad though.

there's always someone richer than you

just like there's always someone richer than me.

>just like there's always someone richer than me.
like every redneck in Alabama, you pathetic cuck

>>1857472
lol
I can buy a significant fraction of Alabama and someday I probably will.

all bickering aside, do you like my $1k worth of chivas bottles? because desu the whiskey was only slightly smoother than a modern regal. Flavour hasn't changed much since the 70's.

literally the biggest loser on biz, and yet you keep roleplaying. this is beyond pathetic. i'm actually nauseated by you. this has become sickening, as you keep debasing yourself more and more. i cant even

>>1857505
>roleplaying
google the price of those bottles I posted.
and then ask yourself honestly how long you'd have to save to buy them.

I blew that much just laughing at you.
remember that. and I'll blow a hundred times that much next year without thinking of you once.

>>1857507
>ask yourself honestly how long you'd have to save to buy them.
>>1857505
my whiskey budget for one night is more than your entire vacation budget for a decade.

it's ok, that happens. George Clooney earns more in a day doing nothing than I will in a year.

jesus christ this thread

>>1858467

I absolutely kek'd when the duty free liquor got involved.

my sides /biz/ my sides

>>1858497
>duty free liquor
it's a tax stamp, pleb.
it means the bitch was imported before the 80's.
apparently I drank the last bottle of pre-90's Chivas available anywhere last night.
why didn't you faggots stop me?
my fucking head.

>>1858537
I'm not saying you were right previously in this thread but I don't see how any adult who gets shit-housed while shit-posting on 4chan on a Monday can be any sort of professional much less a lawyer. You come off as extremely autistic and pretty immature. No offense.

>>1858588
He's not the lawyer, that's me. He's the "millionaire businessman who can buy and sell 4chan." But yes it is extremely cringe worthy stuff, and I'm honestly not sure he's 100% in the mental department, if you know what I mean.

The thread was funny when I thought he was doing some schtick. But now I think he was trying to be serious all along. Yikes.

Hey guys its been about 13 hours time to fuck already

U wot

>>1858716
>He's not the lawyer, that's me.
kek

i'd request proof if I thought for a minute you weren't LARPing.

File: IMG_20170314_170203.jpg (2MB, 4640x3480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4640x3480px

>>1858885
>proof
Understand I'm only posting this because I can't wait to read your backpedalling, excuses, denials, and miscellaneous splurging. You're a fucking joke, kid, and I don't need my law licence to judge that.

#rekt

>>1859101
>lawyer
>thinks LLC is type of corporation
what kind of law do you practice, anal?

>I can't wait to read your backpedalling, excuses, denials, and miscellaneous splurging.

Called it! Fuck, I know its petty, but this really makes my day. I shouldn't be this amused about putting some 14-year old in his place, but fuck it, gotta enjoy the small things too.

Now, do some more roleplaying, kid. Amuse me more!

Aww, poor janitorfag got his feeling hurt and ran away....

>>1860008
No I didn't matt.

I think you're actually too dumb to know how stupid you make yourself look.

if you want to pretend posting dad's credentials is somehow proof you're not an idiot then I'm fine with it. We both know you're young, insecure, not very bright, and more than little jealous.

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>1860089
Hehe, the cuck came back for more abuse! Tell us more about your millions of dollars and all your net worth. Nevermind that you've never provided proof of any of your roleplaying claims. It's just so fucking entertaining that I don't care about your LARPing.

Honest question: did you cry when I posted my bar card and you realized you were wrong in 40 separate posts? And that this thread will always be in the archive for anyone to search and see the "millionaire janitor" get #REKT in the rectum.

>>1860094
>Honest question: did you cry when I posted my bar card and you realized you were wrong in 40 separate posts?
No I cringed.
If those are your documents you've now posted your first name, the first and last letters of your last name, your occupation, and your state of residence.

I don't care to dox your dad but this isn't a safe game you're playing.

I don't take anything you say personally, your gloating is pretty clear evidence of your personal insecurity.

File: 1479709074155.jpg (130KB, 800x545px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x545px

>>1860106
Come and get me janitorboy. I am your lawyer, after all.

Not to mention, its fucking hilarious to get a lecture on doxing from from the faggot who not only posted pictures of his morbidly obese wife and his mildly retarded children in an aborted attempt to convince people that emptying garbage cans earned him millions of dollars.

Janitorboy, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Say hi to the wife for me.

File: 1479709272227.jpg (289KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1024x768px

Honest question: were the kids disappointed that mom was over the weight limit and you couldn't actually do the helicopter tour?

>>1860128
On the plus side the last time we argued over LLC's you didn't agree that solely-owned LLC's are more likely to be pierced in court, or that LLC's don't protect you from liability resulting from your own criminal acts or negligence on behalf of the company.

So you've actually learned a couple things from me since our last argument. Which of course wasn't the first time I made you look like a complete fool, but you're not always aware you're arguing with me and I honestly didn't realize you're the same pretend lawyer I thrashed in a couple threads before.

Keep up the reading, eventually you may actually have a working grasp on why solely owned LLC's tend to be treated as sole proprietorships in court.

File: 1479719023933.jpg (280KB, 570x1024px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 570x1024px

Let's not forget the EPIC photo you posted of TWO HUNDRED WHOLE DOLLARS in an attempt to convince /biz/ that you're not a roleplaying loser. TWO HUNDRED!

>>1860135
>you're the same pretend lawyer I thrashed in a couple threads before.
which also explains your animosity I suppose.

Did I make you drop your trip out of embarrassment?

File: 1479760775228.jpg (280KB, 721x1101px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 721x1101px

>I HAVE NO WORDS

>>1860139
I honestly love that you've saved those.

File: stock-photo-two-beautiful-girls-laughing-and-pointing-at-camera-53857132.jpg (587KB, 1500x1143px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1500x1143px

>he doesn't know /biz/ has an archive
Oh god, I didn't think you could shit yourself any more than when I posted my ARDC card and you ran away.

But I vastly over-estimated your self-esteem. You just love getting reamed. You just take it, and take it, and take it, and take it. Apparently the chubby-wifey wears the pants in the family, huh cuck?

>>1860145
lol
you picked through the archive, found that thread, downloaded my pictures, and then reposted them?

of course I'm gratified. The levels of pain behind that much work are palpable.

I can't say I've done the same, I don't really give you any thought and I'm sure as hell not going back to find pictures you've posted. Thanks for your interest though.

>>1860145
I'm taking my family and a couple friends to Cabo next month, I'll be sure to get you some pics.

File: girls-laughing-586x434.jpg (71KB, 586x434px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 586x434px

>I don't *sniff* care that you've mocked me mercilessly *sniff* for two days straight and proven that I'm *sniff* a roleplaying faggot.
>I'm flattered *sniff* that you make fun of me, my wife, *sniff* and my children.
>I'm not a pussy *sniff* even though I can't even *sniff* *sniff* defend myself or my own family, and if that makes me a cuck *sniff* then I'm a cuck.
Tissue?

File: 1323488149757.jpg (32KB, 650x452px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 650x452px

>he keeps replying to the thread
>he thinks bad attention is better than no attention
C U C K
U
C
K

File: taunt.gif (671KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 250x250px

>>1860154
is it that you take your online defeats personally, or do you just like to feel like you've won something?

because like I said, you're not smart enough to know you've been beaten. I don't think. Or maybe you are and you hate it. I'm not sure which.

>>1860158
this is the point where you show the whole board what a thin-skinned, mean-spirited ass you are.

by all means don't let me stop you.

What's really strange is that with the life you lead, you really should be used to the insults and the mocking. You're a janitor. Everyone looks down on you.

(And then there's your family. Sheesh.)

So why are you so triggered when you get mocked online? You already know that I'm smarter than you, more successful than you, and wealthier than you. I really don;t see the physiological angle you're playing here, unless:

1. You have such massive denial that reality means nothing to you.

or.

2. You love the abuse.

Honestly, though, I don't really care. The day I start giving two shits about the problems of some janitor is the day I blow my brains out.

* and now he'll post 2-3 times in a row begging for more attention *

>>1860165
>The day I start giving two shits about the problems of some janitor is the day I blow my brains out.
>58 posts by this ID
kek

File: 1487926590355.jpg (175KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 600x450px

Why are you two still here

>>1860170
we both live here.

>>1860160
i pretty much never post
like this is actually my first time ever posting

i just wanted to take a few seconds to let you know that you really are embarrassing yourself and you should probably just stop

like really

"this is the point where you show the whole board what a thin-skinned, mean-spirited ass you are"....dog, you've been giving the impression that you are immature as FUCK this entire thread.

anyways yeah this is my first ever post. congrats, i moved to type all of these letters solely by your cringey ass replies

>>1860200
>anyways yeah this is my first ever post. congrats,
lol
I can change my ID too, Matt.

>>1860202
lol whatever dude, have a nice night

>>1860208
thanks, I have had.
sadly the $500 Scotch is gone but this $12.95 rum handle works just as well.

>>1860211

kinda cringey how you changed your id in this thread just to support yourself earlier with "/rekt"....
>>1857074

>>1860218
No worse than you changing your ID to samefag and support yourself.

I've seen you do it at least 20 times before. 2 can play that game.