[Xanifur]

Hey guys.

Ok, I want your opinion. Do you think it would be best to have almost everything you owned under a corporation, as in, assets and liabilities liabilities being car, etc)? I know its important to keep your assets under a corporation, but also your personal liabilities? Do you think it would be wise to have your own house under the corporation?

Facts would be nice, as well as advantages and disadvantages.

[alvig]

No having your personal assets under your corporation would not be a good idea. Thats the point of an LLC only the assets you put into the company after it is formed are at risk. Plus an LLC is easy to start and not very expensive.

[radreality]

Ask an attorney and accountant before you seriously consider doing something like this.

You want your personal liabilities separate from business liabilities. I would think you wouldn't want all under one entity (yourself or a corporation) for the same reasons why you start a corporation to separate business liabilities in the first place.

When you start having liabilities that are generally personal listed under the business, it will raise questions with the IRS and the courts (if you are ever in litigation). I think you would be putting yourself at higher risk by having everything under a corporate veil.

______________________________
Robert Falk
Business Developer / Investor
Self Help & Success Forum

[Xanifur]

Originally Posted by radreality

When you start having liabilities that are generally personal listed under the business, it will raise questions with the IRS and the courts (if you are ever in litigation). I think you would be putting yourself at higher risk by having everything under a corporate veil.

I agree with what you said here. I do recall, that under a corporation, assets have to be related to the business in some way. If I were to get into real estate, I may need a car... that again raises the questions of a real estate license. I know you can't put all liabilities under a corporation, but the needed assets that are both corporate and personal, like a car might be more reasonable.

[The Stealthy One]

This honestly depends on your personal situation. To my knowledge, no one here at YE is qualified to answer this question for you (though we may have a few tax accountants lurking about!). My best advice would be to consult with a tax accountant and/or tax attorney. Depending on how complicated your situation, you may need to speak with both.

[jasaunders]

I am qualified to answer this question, based on the fact that I pursued and won a lawsuit related to this in which I was awarded monetary damages because someone combined their personal financials in an LLC.

The short answer is no, you should not. Most state laws specifically say that you can not co-mingle personal and business finances and if you do, you will have no liability protection. Case in point, if someone sues your business, you could be personally liable; if someone sues you personally, it may put your business assets at risk.

[The Stealthy One]

Actually, no, that does not qualify you - at least in terms of what I meant in my post. I am talking about qualified legal assistance. Unless you have passed your state's bar examination, this is something that you would not have.

[Gaulkin]

Thats a sad question.... why would anyone in the right mind what to combine any two different things. You always want to have every single thing in a different entity. One business in one LLC and then the other business in another LLC. Same thing for property ownership, One property in one LLC and another property in a different LLC. Then your personal stuff in a different entity.

[jasaunders]

Actually, I think it does. I represented myself and two others in three seperate small claims and circuit court cases in relation to this. I am well-versed in Wisconsin State law and local ordinances, which are very similiar across the country. I can guarantee you I know more about this subject then any lawyer other than those that specifically practice this area of law.

[The Stealthy One]

Unfortunately, you are still not qualified. A lawyer is bonded and insured, you are not (at least when it comes to giving legal advice).

[jasaunders]

It qualifies me as someone who is an expert on the subject. I believe it qualifies me to expense advice on the subject. I would not offer advice if I did not think I was qualified and I never do on this board.

Based on your reasoning, a personal injury lawyer who has never dealt with corporate law is more qualified to give advice than someone who has practiced in the specific area.

In dozens of other threads I have suggested that people seek legal advice. When it comes to something I am very familiar with, I am not going to rattle that off, knowing it is a not only a waste of the original poster's time (since several people already stated it), but a waste of my own. I did not, nor am I now, representing myself as a lawyer. In fact, I have been extremely clear on my experience with the topic. People could take mine or anyone else's advice with whatever weight they want. ...But if you think two or more people saying the same thing in a thread is valuable, well then maybe the objective of this forum should be called into question; lets replace the homepage with a simple statement that says "Don't ask a question here, only ask an expensive, highly respected professional in the corresponding industry a question because people with similiar experiences aren't qualified."