I'm the only one with common sense here

[TemplarKormac]

You are a rare breed of idiot with a rare penchant for overstatement.

I sure taught you guys about business entity's.

So, explain this to me. How can you be a sole owner of your franchise and own all of the stock at the same time? Doing so would be counterproductive being the sole investor. So I call bullshit on that part.

I don't care about that. I can be the only share holder as the owner, though.

No you can't. You don't need to be a shareholder, nor are you a shareholder.

You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like you're one of those guys who has opened a regional franchise and goes house to house selling crap products, all while you sit on your hind parts doing little to nothing.

What you describe is a sole proprietorship, but you then are claiming to be an S-Corporation. You cannot jump from being a sole proprietor to the owner of an S-Corp. You need to file as a C type corporation first, then have ALL of your shareholders file a form 2553 to elect it as an S type.

Geez, looks like I just educated you on corporate tax law. By definition, a shareholder and owner are two different things entirely.

As I pointed out to you the owner and wife are considered to be 1 shareholder. You were saying?

Your marital status means jacksquat. You don't know anything about what it takes to be an S-Corp or what it takes to be a shareholder. You cannot be a shareholder and owner of an S-Corp, not even if you are a polygamist.

Here it is and in bold,

S corporations and LLCs possess similarities: They offer their owners limited liability protection and are both pass-through tax entities. Pass-through taxation allows the income or loss generated by the business to be reflected on the personal income tax return of the owners. This special tax status eliminates any possibility of double taxation for S corporations and LLCs.


A corporation must meet certain conditions to be eligible for a subchapter S election. First, the corporation must have no more than 75 shareholders. In calculating the 75-shareholder limit, a husband and wife count as one shareholder. Also, only the following entities may be shareholders: individuals, estates, certain trusts, certain partnerships, tax-exempt charitable organizations, and other S corporations (but only if the other S corporation is the sole shareholder).

In addition, owners of S corporations who don't have inventory can use the cash method of accounting, which is simpler than the accrual method. Under this method, income is taxable when received and expenses are deductible when paid.

You keep making my point. You (or your spouse) cannot be the sole investor(s) in an S type corporation. Unless you filed for C type first, you cannot be the sole investor electing your corporation for S type. Geez, what will it take for me to get this through your thick head?

By the way, you need to link to your sources.

 

[Judicial review]

In effect, an active shareholder in a S corporation wears at least two hats: as a shareholder (owner) of the corporation, and as an employee of that corporation. This allows for savings on Social Security and Medicare taxes because such taxes need not be paid on distributions of earnings and profits from the corporation to its shareholders. Thus, to the extent they pay themselves shareholder distributions instead of employee salary, S corporation shareholder/employees can save big money on payroll taxes.

S Corporations and Salaries An IRS Hot Button Issue Nolo.com

You were saying?

 

[Judicial review]

I sure taught you guys about business entity's.

So, explain this to me. How can you be a sole owner of your franchise and own all of the stock at the same time? Doing so would be counterproductive being the sole investor. So I call bullshit on that part.

I don't care about that. I can be the only share holder as the owner, though.

No you can't. You don't need to be a shareholder, nor are you a shareholder.

You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like you're one of those guys who has opened a regional franchise and goes house to house selling crap products, all while you sit on your hind parts doing little to nothing.

What you describe is a sole proprietorship, but you then are claiming to be an S-Corporation. You cannot jump from being a sole proprietor to the owner of an S-Corp. You need to file as a C type corporation first, then have ALL of your shareholders file a form 2553 to elect it as an S type.

Geez, looks like I just educated you on corporate tax law. By definition, a shareholder and owner are two different things entirely.

As I pointed out to you the owner and wife are considered to be 1 shareholder. You were saying?

Your marital status means jacksquat. You don't know anything about what it takes to be an S-Corp or what it takes to be a shareholder. You cannot be a shareholder and owner of an S-Corp, not even if you are a polygamist.

Here it is and in bold,

S corporations and LLCs possess similarities: They offer their owners limited liability protection and are both pass-through tax entities. Pass-through taxation allows the income or loss generated by the business to be reflected on the personal income tax return of the owners. This special tax status eliminates any possibility of double taxation for S corporations and LLCs.


A corporation must meet certain conditions to be eligible for a subchapter S election. First, the corporation must have no more than 75 shareholders. In calculating the 75-shareholder limit, a husband and wife count as one shareholder. Also, only the following entities may be shareholders: individuals, estates, certain trusts, certain partnerships, tax-exempt charitable organizations, and other S corporations (but only if the other S corporation is the sole shareholder).

In addition, owners of S corporations who don't have inventory can use the cash method of accounting, which is simpler than the accrual method. Under this method, income is taxable when received and expenses are deductible when paid.

You keep making my point. You (or your spouse) cannot be the sole investor(s) in an S type corporation. Unless you filed for C type first, you cannot be the sole investor electing your corporation for S type. Geez, what will it take for me to get this through your thick head?

By the way, you need to link to your sources.

Wrong again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, explain this to me. How can you be a sole owner of your franchise and own all of the stock at the same time? Doing so would be counterproductive being the sole investor. So I call bullshit on that part.

No you can't. You don't need to be a shareholder, nor are you a shareholder.

You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like you're one of those guys who has opened a regional franchise and goes house to house selling crap products, all while you sit on your hind parts doing little to nothing.

What you describe is a sole proprietorship, but you then are claiming to be an S-Corporation. You cannot jump from being a sole proprietor to the owner of an S-Corp. You need to file as a C type corporation first, then have ALL of your shareholders file a form 2553 to elect it as an S type.

Geez, looks like I just educated you on corporate tax law. By definition, a shareholder and owner are two different things entirely.

As I pointed out to you the owner and wife are considered to be 1 shareholder. You were saying?

Your marital status means jacksquat. You don't know anything about what it takes to be an S-Corp or what it takes to be a shareholder. You cannot be a shareholder and owner of an S-Corp, not even if you are a polygamist.

Here it is and in bold,

S corporations and LLCs possess similarities: They offer their owners limited liability protection and are both pass-through tax entities. Pass-through taxation allows the income or loss generated by the business to be reflected on the personal income tax return of the owners. This special tax status eliminates any possibility of double taxation for S corporations and LLCs.


A corporation must meet certain conditions to be eligible for a subchapter S election. First, the corporation must have no more than 75 shareholders. In calculating the 75-shareholder limit, a husband and wife count as one shareholder. Also, only the following entities may be shareholders: individuals, estates, certain trusts, certain partnerships, tax-exempt charitable organizations, and other S corporations (but only if the other S corporation is the sole shareholder).

In addition, owners of S corporations who don't have inventory can use the cash method of accounting, which is simpler than the accrual method. Under this method, income is taxable when received and expenses are deductible when paid.

You keep making my point. You (or your spouse) cannot be the sole investor(s) in an S type corporation. Unless you filed for C type first, you cannot be the sole investor electing your corporation for S type. Geez, what will it take for me to get this through your thick head?

By the way, you need to link to your sources.

Wrong again.

Prove it. It appears I'm the only one citing corporate tax law by memory, you have to use the internet just to keep up. Most (if not all) of your information is wrong.

 

[Judicial review]

As I pointed out to you the owner and wife are considered to be 1 shareholder. You were saying?

Your marital status means jacksquat. You don't know anything about what it takes to be an S-Corp or what it takes to be a shareholder. You cannot be a shareholder and owner of an S-Corp, not even if you are a polygamist.

Here it is and in bold,

S corporations and LLCs possess similarities: They offer their owners limited liability protection and are both pass-through tax entities. Pass-through taxation allows the income or loss generated by the business to be reflected on the personal income tax return of the owners. This special tax status eliminates any possibility of double taxation for S corporations and LLCs.


A corporation must meet certain conditions to be eligible for a subchapter S election. First, the corporation must have no more than 75 shareholders. In calculating the 75-shareholder limit, a husband and wife count as one shareholder. Also, only the following entities may be shareholders: individuals, estates, certain trusts, certain partnerships, tax-exempt charitable organizations, and other S corporations (but only if the other S corporation is the sole shareholder).

In addition, owners of S corporations who don't have inventory can use the cash method of accounting, which is simpler than the accrual method. Under this method, income is taxable when received and expenses are deductible when paid.

You keep making my point. You (or your spouse) cannot be the sole investor(s) in an S type corporation. Unless you filed for C type first, you cannot be the sole investor electing your corporation for S type. Geez, what will it take for me to get this through your thick head?

By the way, you need to link to your sources.

Wrong again.

Prove it. It appears I'm the only one citing corporate tax law by memory, you have to use the internet just to keep up. Most (if not all) of your information is wrong.

No you weren't listening to a damn thing I was saying and you are "starting" to piss me off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In effect, an active shareholder in a S corporation wears at least two hats: as a shareholder (owner) of the corporation, and as an employee of that corporation. This allows for savings on Social Security and Medicare taxes because such taxes need not be paid on distributions of earnings and profits from the corporation to its shareholders. Thus, to the extent they pay themselves shareholder distributions instead of employee salary, S corporation shareholder/employees can save big money on payroll taxes.

S Corporations and Salaries An IRS Hot Button Issue Nolo.com

You were saying?

Thanks for the blatant mischaracterization. If you have no shareholders other than yourself, you have no other employees, that leaves only you. You are the only employee and shareholder. That makes zero sense. You are getting very little in return for being so, which is a very dumb move.

And for the record, you are a franchisee, not an owner of a franchise. You don't create a freaking thing.

 

[Judicial review]

In effect, an active shareholder in a S corporation wears at least two hats: as a shareholder (owner) of the corporation, and as an employee of that corporation. This allows for savings on Social Security and Medicare taxes because such taxes need not be paid on distributions of earnings and profits from the corporation to its shareholders. Thus, to the extent they pay themselves shareholder distributions instead of employee salary, S corporation shareholder/employees can save big money on payroll taxes.

S Corporations and Salaries An IRS Hot Button Issue Nolo.com

You were saying?

Thanks for the blatant mischaracterization. If you have no shareholders other than yourself, you have no other employees, that leaves only you. You are the only employee and shareholder. That makes zero sense.

Makes plenty of sense. Everybody else is 1099. You said the owner couldn't be the shareholder and I just proved otherwise. Now go run off like a scared cat.

 

[sameech]

One other thing that caught my eye, how can your franchise be worth $8 million without any shareholders?

Simple - as a small business with no more than 20 1099 IC's the commission I make is very high per sale. I don't keep that money in the business account I usually just by inventory (extra) since it's a write off. I will also pay myself a higher salary, which is another benefit of a s-corp. I'm worth 8 million total so my business is despite being incorporated. It's perception.

You don't need to be an S corp to have a salary or have it be large. LLCs do the same thing. When you say the business is worth 8 million, that means your assets are that much. Doubtful you have $8M in vacuums hanging around. Busted.

I know that. I have a s-corp for the legal protection.

I have about 600,000 in inventory. I buy that much every month. In dec I will just buy an extra months worth.

S-corps don't give you much in the way of legal protection from personal liability. Odds are you do not do the legal necessities to do that, and more importantly, in many jurisdictions, a single owner of an S-corp is deemed so synonymous with the corporate entity, that you will personally be held liable for all but perhaps simple negligence claims.

Yes I can be held liable. The s-corp filing helps the parent company not really me. This is why I carry business insurance and do extensive background checks and train people how to do no pressure sales.

A lot of S-corp owners would be better going with the LLC because of the record keeping requirements being higher for the S-corp. I would not be surprised if truth be told, 99.9% of single owner S-corps' corporate books are defective because they do not have annual meetings with the appropriate recorded notices, etc. There is not practical need for them, but the law does require them as part of the liability shield. LLC were basically created I think so lawyers would stop banging their heads on their desks when an S-corp was their client.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In effect, an active shareholder in a S corporation wears at least two hats: as a shareholder (owner) of the corporation, and as an employee of that corporation. This allows for savings on Social Security and Medicare taxes because such taxes need not be paid on distributions of earnings and profits from the corporation to its shareholders. Thus, to the extent they pay themselves shareholder distributions instead of employee salary, S corporation shareholder/employees can save big money on payroll taxes.

S Corporations and Salaries An IRS Hot Button Issue Nolo.com

You were saying?

Thanks for the blatant mischaracterization. If you have no shareholders other than yourself, you have no other employees, that leaves only you. You are the only employee and shareholder. That makes zero sense.

Makes plenty of sense. Everybody else is 1099. You said the owner couldn't be the shareholder and I just proved otherwise. Now go run off like a scared cat.

Oh? Who is this "everybody else"? There is no point in being the sole owner and employee. That makes your corporation an employee of one.

And for the record, you are a franchisee, not an owner of a franchise. You don't create a freaking thing. Kirby is a franchise, so you’re not the owner of anything. You’re a franchisee using their image and their brand. So, that makes you a liar. Only a franchisor can employ 1099's bud.

 

[Judicial review]

Simple - as a small business with no more than 20 1099 IC's the commission I make is very high per sale. I don't keep that money in the business account I usually just by inventory (extra) since it's a write off. I will also pay myself a higher salary, which is another benefit of a s-corp. I'm worth 8 million total so my business is despite being incorporated. It's perception.

You don't need to be an S corp to have a salary or have it be large. LLCs do the same thing. When you say the business is worth 8 million, that means your assets are that much. Doubtful you have $8M in vacuums hanging around. Busted.

I know that. I have a s-corp for the legal protection.

I have about 600,000 in inventory. I buy that much every month. In dec I will just buy an extra months worth.

S-corps don't give you much in the way of legal protection from personal liability. Odds are you do not do the legal necessities to do that, and more importantly, in many jurisdictions, a single owner of an S-corp is deemed so synonymous with the corporate entity, that you will personally be held liable for all but perhaps simple negligence claims.

Yes I can be held liable. The s-corp filing helps the parent company not really me. This is why I carry business insurance and do extensive background checks and train people how to do no pressure sales.

A lot of S-corp owners would be better going with the LLC because of the record keeping requirements being higher for the S-corp. I would not be surprised if truth be told, 99.9% of single owner S-corps' corporate books are defective because they do not have annual meetings with the appropriate recorded notices, etc. There is not practical need for them, but the law does require them as part of the liability shield. LLC were basically created I think so lawyers would stop banging their heads on their desks when an S-corp was their client.

I would LOVE to be an LLC, but the Kirby company says no Kirby distributor can be in business unless they are an s-corp. I don't have a choice. I agree with you, though.

 

[Judicial review]

In effect, an active shareholder in a S corporation wears at least two hats: as a shareholder (owner) of the corporation, and as an employee of that corporation. This allows for savings on Social Security and Medicare taxes because such taxes need not be paid on distributions of earnings and profits from the corporation to its shareholders. Thus, to the extent they pay themselves shareholder distributions instead of employee salary, S corporation shareholder/employees can save big money on payroll taxes.

S Corporations and Salaries An IRS Hot Button Issue Nolo.com

You were saying?

Thanks for the blatant mischaracterization. If you have no shareholders other than yourself, you have no other employees, that leaves only you. You are the only employee and shareholder. That makes zero sense.

Makes plenty of sense. Everybody else is 1099. You said the owner couldn't be the shareholder and I just proved otherwise. Now go run off like a scared cat.

Oh? Who is this "everybody else"? There is no point in being the sole owner and employee. That makes your corporation an employee of one.

And for the record, you are a franchisee, not an owner of a franchise. You don't create a freaking thing. Kirby is a franchise, you’re not owner of jacksquat. You’re a franchisee using their image and their brand. So, that makes you a liar.

According to the business entity filing I am the owner. The everbody else are the sales men who choose to work for me because I supply the product. However, I would have loved to be the guy in 1914 who created the Kirby. I trained everybody in my office from the ground up. I created the sales. Most business owners are franchisees or like me in that they didn't create the business or product, they just know how to do it and become more competitive then others. Examples are CPA's and energy companies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't need to be an S corp to have a salary or have it be large. LLCs do the same thing. When you say the business is worth 8 million, that means your assets are that much. Doubtful you have $8M in vacuums hanging around. Busted.

I know that. I have a s-corp for the legal protection.

I have about 600,000 in inventory. I buy that much every month. In dec I will just buy an extra months worth.

S-corps don't give you much in the way of legal protection from personal liability. Odds are you do not do the legal necessities to do that, and more importantly, in many jurisdictions, a single owner of an S-corp is deemed so synonymous with the corporate entity, that you will personally be held liable for all but perhaps simple negligence claims.

Yes I can be held liable. The s-corp filing helps the parent company not really me. This is why I carry business insurance and do extensive background checks and train people how to do no pressure sales.

A lot of S-corp owners would be better going with the LLC because of the record keeping requirements being higher for the S-corp. I would not be surprised if truth be told, 99.9% of single owner S-corps' corporate books are defective because they do not have annual meetings with the appropriate recorded notices, etc. There is not practical need for them, but the law does require them as part of the liability shield. LLC were basically created I think so lawyers would stop banging their heads on their desks when an S-corp was their client.

I would LOVE to be an LLC, but the Kirby company says no Kirby distributor can be in business unless they are an s-corp. I don't have a choice. I agree with you, though.

That is it, you are a dealer, not an owner.

 

[Judicial review]

I know that. I have a s-corp for the legal protection.

I have about 600,000 in inventory. I buy that much every month. In dec I will just buy an extra months worth.

S-corps don't give you much in the way of legal protection from personal liability. Odds are you do not do the legal necessities to do that, and more importantly, in many jurisdictions, a single owner of an S-corp is deemed so synonymous with the corporate entity, that you will personally be held liable for all but perhaps simple negligence claims.

Yes I can be held liable. The s-corp filing helps the parent company not really me. This is why I carry business insurance and do extensive background checks and train people how to do no pressure sales.

A lot of S-corp owners would be better going with the LLC because of the record keeping requirements being higher for the S-corp. I would not be surprised if truth be told, 99.9% of single owner S-corps' corporate books are defective because they do not have annual meetings with the appropriate recorded notices, etc. There is not practical need for them, but the law does require them as part of the liability shield. LLC were basically created I think so lawyers would stop banging their heads on their desks when an S-corp was their client.

I would LOVE to be an LLC, but the Kirby company says no Kirby distributor can be in business unless they are an s-corp. I don't have a choice. I agree with you, though.

That is it, you are a distributor, not an owner.

I am an owner and distributor. See thre Kirby company can't fire me unless I sell less than 30 a month. I sell 500+. they also can't tell me what to do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is from Kirby:

Kirby Sales Careers Kirby Business Opportunities

 

[sameech]

You don't need to be an S corp to have a salary or have it be large. LLCs do the same thing. When you say the business is worth 8 million, that means your assets are that much. Doubtful you have $8M in vacuums hanging around. Busted.

I know that. I have a s-corp for the legal protection.

I have about 600,000 in inventory. I buy that much every month. In dec I will just buy an extra months worth.

S-corps don't give you much in the way of legal protection from personal liability. Odds are you do not do the legal necessities to do that, and more importantly, in many jurisdictions, a single owner of an S-corp is deemed so synonymous with the corporate entity, that you will personally be held liable for all but perhaps simple negligence claims.

Yes I can be held liable. The s-corp filing helps the parent company not really me. This is why I carry business insurance and do extensive background checks and train people how to do no pressure sales.

A lot of S-corp owners would be better going with the LLC because of the record keeping requirements being higher for the S-corp. I would not be surprised if truth be told, 99.9% of single owner S-corps' corporate books are defective because they do not have annual meetings with the appropriate recorded notices, etc. There is not practical need for them, but the law does require them as part of the liability shield. LLC were basically created I think so lawyers would stop banging their heads on their desks when an S-corp was their client.

I would LOVE to be an LLC, but the Kirby company says no Kirby distributor can be in business unless they are an s-corp. I don't have a choice. I agree with you, though.

Sorry, I would have more respect for you if you told me you were lying than to tell me that you are a Kirby Distributor. You are basically in a business that is even worse than rent to own joints and pay day lenders. Kirby preys on idiots with those adhesion contracts for an overpriced vacuum. Who cares if they last forever--they cost $1500 and then come with those very convenient 20% interest financing charges.

 

[Judicial review]

This is from Kirby:

Kirby Sales Careers Kirby Business Opportunities

yes, a dealer is considered the bottom of the food chain.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are a franchisee, not an owner. I can repeat that over and over and over.

 

[Judicial review]

I know that. I have a s-corp for the legal protection.

I have about 600,000 in inventory. I buy that much every month. In dec I will just buy an extra months worth.

S-corps don't give you much in the way of legal protection from personal liability. Odds are you do not do the legal necessities to do that, and more importantly, in many jurisdictions, a single owner of an S-corp is deemed so synonymous with the corporate entity, that you will personally be held liable for all but perhaps simple negligence claims.

Yes I can be held liable. The s-corp filing helps the parent company not really me. This is why I carry business insurance and do extensive background checks and train people how to do no pressure sales.

A lot of S-corp owners would be better going with the LLC because of the record keeping requirements being higher for the S-corp. I would not be surprised if truth be told, 99.9% of single owner S-corps' corporate books are defective because they do not have annual meetings with the appropriate recorded notices, etc. There is not practical need for them, but the law does require them as part of the liability shield. LLC were basically created I think so lawyers would stop banging their heads on their desks when an S-corp was their client.

I would LOVE to be an LLC, but the Kirby company says no Kirby distributor can be in business unless they are an s-corp. I don't have a choice. I agree with you, though.

You didn't post anything.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is from Kirby:

Kirby Sales Careers Kirby Business Opportunities

yes, a dealer is considered the bottom of the food chain.

Well then, you just acknowledged you aren't an owner. Good night.

 

[Judicial review]

You are a franchisee, not an owner. I can repeat that over and over and over.

Yes I'm the owner of a franchise that's part of the kirby company. A lot different then being a franchise owner of a subway.