Incorporating…

[admin]

The subject came up recently over lunch. It was mentioned to me that I should form a corporation. The party said I should never buy a home and a car in my name. He said when I purchase a home, let the corporation buy it and put my personal car in the corporation’s name.

He said items belonging to the corporation would be protected if anyone wanted to sue me personally. He also said there would be tax benefits. Also, I know there are different kinds, (e.g. “S” corp). I understood that incorporating was for when you own a business, I have no intention of being a tax cheat.

This guy knows I don’t own a business at present, down the line I will because of the field I’m in.

I got the feeling he was suggesting incorporation as a way to protects one’s assets?

Is that even legal?

[ucodegen]

My 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.

[ucodegen]

My 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.

[ucodegen]

My 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.

[ucodegen]

My 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.

[ucodegen]

My 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.

[larrylujack]

it 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.

[larrylujack]

it 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.

[larrylujack]

it 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.

[larrylujack]

it 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.

[larrylujack]

it 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.

[EconProf]

BobS
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.

[EconProf]

BobS
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.

[EconProf]

BobS
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.

[EconProf]

BobS
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.

[Author]

Posts