- This topic has 95 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 12 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 24, 2007 at 4:18 PM #11313December 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM #123743
ucodegen
ParticipantMy understanding is that it works the other way around…
From the side of the corporate owner:
Your house and car will be in the name of the corporation, but the corporation will be considered your asset. If someone sues you, they can go after your assets… including your ownership of the corporation.From the side of the corporation:
If you are doing business under a corporation and someone sues the corporation.. they can go after the corporation’s assets, but not yours.A corporation is considered a legal ‘entity’. What you may be looking for, for the protection of property etc, may be a trust.
December 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM #123888ParticipantMy understanding is that it works the other way around…
From the side of the corporate owner:
Your house and car will be in the name of the corporation, but the corporation will be considered your asset. If someone sues you, they can go after your assets… including your ownership of the corporation.From the side of the corporation:
If you are doing business under a corporation and someone sues the corporation.. they can go after the corporation’s assets, but not yours.A corporation is considered a legal ‘entity’. What you may be looking for, for the protection of property etc, may be a trust.
December 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM #123911ParticipantMy understanding is that it works the other way around…
From the side of the corporate owner:
Your house and car will be in the name of the corporation, but the corporation will be considered your asset. If someone sues you, they can go after your assets… including your ownership of the corporation.From the side of the corporation:
If you are doing business under a corporation and someone sues the corporation.. they can go after the corporation’s assets, but not yours.A corporation is considered a legal ‘entity’. What you may be looking for, for the protection of property etc, may be a trust.
December 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM #123964ParticipantMy understanding is that it works the other way around…
From the side of the corporate owner:
Your house and car will be in the name of the corporation, but the corporation will be considered your asset. If someone sues you, they can go after your assets… including your ownership of the corporation.From the side of the corporation:
If you are doing business under a corporation and someone sues the corporation.. they can go after the corporation’s assets, but not yours.A corporation is considered a legal ‘entity’. What you may be looking for, for the protection of property etc, may be a trust.
December 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM #123986ParticipantMy understanding is that it works the other way around…
From the side of the corporate owner:
Your house and car will be in the name of the corporation, but the corporation will be considered your asset. If someone sues you, they can go after your assets… including your ownership of the corporation.From the side of the corporation:
If you are doing business under a corporation and someone sues the corporation.. they can go after the corporation’s assets, but not yours.A corporation is considered a legal ‘entity’. What you may be looking for, for the protection of property etc, may be a trust.
December 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM #123764larrylujack
Participantit may not be illegal but it is retarded. a corporation ostensibly needs to be a going concern, not just a way to shield assets from creditors.
besides, you don’t own a business or home anyway so what is the point, are you a deadbeat trying to hide your assets from creditors? If so, in a lawsuit a plaintiff against you could simply pierce the corporate shield anyway so you will derive no benefit.
oh, I would not take any more advice from your so-called friend who suggested the idea as the idea is terribly stupid.December 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM #123913Participantit may not be illegal but it is retarded. a corporation ostensibly needs to be a going concern, not just a way to shield assets from creditors.
besides, you don’t own a business or home anyway so what is the point, are you a deadbeat trying to hide your assets from creditors? If so, in a lawsuit a plaintiff against you could simply pierce the corporate shield anyway so you will derive no benefit.
oh, I would not take any more advice from your so-called friend who suggested the idea as the idea is terribly stupid.December 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM #123936Participantit may not be illegal but it is retarded. a corporation ostensibly needs to be a going concern, not just a way to shield assets from creditors.
besides, you don’t own a business or home anyway so what is the point, are you a deadbeat trying to hide your assets from creditors? If so, in a lawsuit a plaintiff against you could simply pierce the corporate shield anyway so you will derive no benefit.
oh, I would not take any more advice from your so-called friend who suggested the idea as the idea is terribly stupid.December 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM #123989Participantit may not be illegal but it is retarded. a corporation ostensibly needs to be a going concern, not just a way to shield assets from creditors.
besides, you don’t own a business or home anyway so what is the point, are you a deadbeat trying to hide your assets from creditors? If so, in a lawsuit a plaintiff against you could simply pierce the corporate shield anyway so you will derive no benefit.
oh, I would not take any more advice from your so-called friend who suggested the idea as the idea is terribly stupid.December 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM #124011Participantit may not be illegal but it is retarded. a corporation ostensibly needs to be a going concern, not just a way to shield assets from creditors.
besides, you don’t own a business or home anyway so what is the point, are you a deadbeat trying to hide your assets from creditors? If so, in a lawsuit a plaintiff against you could simply pierce the corporate shield anyway so you will derive no benefit.
oh, I would not take any more advice from your so-called friend who suggested the idea as the idea is terribly stupid.December 25, 2007 at 7:46 AM #124052EconProf
ParticipantBobS
Dump this “friend”.
Incorporating seldom makes legal or financial sense for 98% of the average population.
It costs $800 PER YEAR in California, plus significant first year start-up costs, probably with a lawyer.
Only really helps if you are suit-prone, have major assets to shield, doing something that could prompt others to sue, etc.December 25, 2007 at 7:46 AM #124127ParticipantBobS
Dump this “friend”.
Incorporating seldom makes legal or financial sense for 98% of the average population.
It costs $800 PER YEAR in California, plus significant first year start-up costs, probably with a lawyer.
Only really helps if you are suit-prone, have major assets to shield, doing something that could prompt others to sue, etc.December 25, 2007 at 7:46 AM #124104ParticipantBobS
Dump this “friend”.
Incorporating seldom makes legal or financial sense for 98% of the average population.
It costs $800 PER YEAR in California, plus significant first year start-up costs, probably with a lawyer.
Only really helps if you are suit-prone, have major assets to shield, doing something that could prompt others to sue, etc.December 25, 2007 at 7:46 AM #124028ParticipantBobS
Dump this “friend”.
Incorporating seldom makes legal or financial sense for 98% of the average population.
It costs $800 PER YEAR in California, plus significant first year start-up costs, probably with a lawyer.
Only really helps if you are suit-prone, have major assets to shield, doing something that could prompt others to sue, etc. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.