What's the appropriate way to signify an S-Corp?
"S-Corp is a corporation. I.e.: you add a ""Inc."" or ""Corp."" to the name or something of that kind. ""S"" denotes a specific tax treatment which may change during the lifetime of the corporation. It doesn't refer to a legal status." "Subchapter S Corporations are a special type of corporation; the difference is how they are taxed, not how they relate to their vendors or customers.  As a result, they are named the same way as any other corporation. The rules on names of corporations vary by state.  ""Corporation"" and ""Incorporated"" (and their abbreviations) are allowed by every state, but some states allow other names as well.  The Wikipedia article ""Types of business entity"" lists an overview of corporation naming rules for each state. The S-Corp that I work for has ""Inc."" at the end of its name."
"I really wish they'd change the title to ""corporations"".  Companies aren't the only thing that can be corporations and avoid jail.  Other organizations that operate as partnerships or sole proprietors in effect operate as people that can be arrested and put in jail and can't hide the owners and can't contribute unlimited amounts to candidates." I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll. "I don't know what you mean by ""claim for taxes,"" I think you mean pay taxes.   I'm not sure how corps function in Canada but in the US single owner limited liability entities typically pass the net income through to the owner to be included in their personal tax return.   So it seems all of this is more or less moot, because really you should probably already be including your income sourced from this project on your personal taxes and that's not really likely to change if you formed something more formal.  The formal business arrangements really exist to limit the liability of the business spilling over in to the owner's assets.  Or trouble in the owner's life spilling over to interrupt the business operation.  I don't know what kind of business this is, but it may make sense to set up one of the limited liability arrangements to ensure that business liability doesn't automatically mean personal liability. A sole proprietorship or in the US we have DBA (doing business as) paperwork will get you a separate tax id number, which may be beneficial if you ever have to provide a tax ID and don't want to use your individual ID; but this won't limit your liability the way incorporating does." "This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so ""earnings"" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a ""reasonable compensation"" requirement, so while B and C don't do any ""work"" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place." Street name is not what you think it is in the question.  The broker is the owner in street name.  There is no external secondary owner information.   I don't know if there is available independent verification, but if the broker is in the US and they go out of business suddenly, you can make a claim to the SIPC. I think you can solve the problem of different wordings by having a lookup with a table of all the different ways companies spell the same words that returns a standard format that you use. That way you only need to update the table every time you come across a new company and you wont have to type it out all the time. Thanks for that, it did help.   I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital.   I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment. These are all factually correct claims. S-Corporation is a pass-through entity, so whatever gain you have on the corporate level - is passed to the shareholders. If your S-Corp has capital gains - you'll get your pro-rata share of the capital gains. Interest? The same. Dividends? You get it on your K-1. Earned income? Taxed as such to you. I.e.: whether you earn income as a S-Corp or as a sole proprietor - matters not. That's the answer to your bottom line question. The big issue, however, is this: you cannot have more than 25% passive income in your S-Corp. You pass that limit (three consecutive years, one-off is ok) - your S-Corp automatically converts to C-Corp, and you're taxed at the corporate level at the corporate rates (you then lose the capital gains rates, personal brackets, etc). This means that an S-Corp cannot be an investment company. Most (75%+) of its income has to be earned, not passive. Another problem with S-Corp is that people who work as self-proprietors incorporated as S-Corp try to abuse it and claim that the income they earned by the virtue of their own personal performance shouldn't be taxed as self-employed income. IRS frowns upon such a position, and if considerable amounts are at stake will take you all the way up to the Tax Court to prove you wrong. This has happened before, numerously. You should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA/Attorney licensed in your state) to educate you about what S-Corp is and how it is taxed, and whether or not it is appropriate for you. "You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the ""profit distribution"" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as ""profits from S-Corp"". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case." Well it depends on whether or not your differentiating against. If its capital stock or stock as in a share certificate in the company. If its a share in the company then in my opinion using Equity would be best as it is a form of an asset and does refer to a piece of ownership of the entity. I wouldn't consider a share of stock a service, since the service to you is say Facebook or the broker who facilitates the transaction of buying or selling FB stock. I also would not consider it a Capital Good, as the Capital Good's would be the referring to the actual capital like the servers,other computer equipments etc. An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through.  This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving.  The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes. "Presumably it means they're paying with normal money rather than paying with stock. Shareholders will receive money rather than any shares of AMZN when the deal goes through.   ""Cash"" doesn't necessarily mean ""currency"" a la bills and coins. When you have money in your brokerage that isn't tied up in a security, for example, you're holding ""cash"" even though you don't physically have ""currency""." Having an EIN does not make the LLC a corporation -- your business can have an EIN even when treated like a sole proprietorship. An EIN is required to have a Individual 401(k), for example. But you can still be an LLC, taxed as a sole proprietor, and have a 401(k). You would need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS to elect S Corporation status. If you don't do that, you're still treated as a disregarded LLC. Whether or not you should make the election is another question. You're confusing a lot of things here. Company B LLC will have it's sales run under Company A LLC, and cease operating as a separate entity These two are contradicting each other. If B LLC ceases to exist - it is not going to have it's sales run under A LLC, since there will be no sales to run for a non-existent company. What happens is that you merge B LLC into A LLC, and then convert A LLC into S Corp. So you're cancelling the EIN for B LLC, you're cancelling the EIN for A LLC - because both entities cease to exist. You then create a EIN for A Corp, which is the converted A LLC, and you create a DBA where A Corp DBA B Shop. You then go to the bank and open the account for A Corp DBA B Shop with the EIN you just created for A Corp. Get a better accountant. Before you convert to S-Corp. "It sounds like maybe you want an ""investment club"".  As defined by the SEC: An investment club is a group of people who pool their money to make investments. Usually, investment clubs are organized as partnerships and, after the members study different investments, the group decides to buy or sell based on a majority vote of the members. Club meetings may be educational and each member may actively participate in investment decisions. These ""typically"" do not need to register: Investment clubs usually do not have to register, or register the offer and sale of their own membership interests, with the SEC. But since each investment club is unique, each club should decide if it needs to register and comply with securities laws. There's more information from the SEC here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/invclub.htm The taxes depend on how you organized the club, i.e. if you organize as a partnership, I believe that you will be taxed as a partnership. (Not 100% sure.)  Some online brokerages have special accounts specifically for investment clubs.  Check around."