Showing posts with label Start-Ups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Start-Ups. Show all posts

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Why the LLC is a Favorite for Start-Ups (Part I)

An unscientific survey of the most often asked question posted on the web by start-ups is:  "What type of entity should I form for my new business?"  In most cases, lawyers and entrepreneurs will suggest the limited liability company.  While compared to a corporation, LLCs are a new form of business organization, but start-ups more often choose the LLC over a corporation.  Therefore, what is it about the LLC that makes a preferred structure for start-ups?  The answer:  favorable tax structure, flexibility and ease of use.  The next three posts will review:


          1.  Reason #1: The tax advantages of the LLC versus the corporation;


          2.  Reason #2: The extremely flexible nature of the LLC, allowing wide-latitude in structuring the rights and obligations of the members (i.e., the partners);


          3. Reason #3:  The user friendly nature of an LLC.  




Reason One:  Why Start-Ups often Prefer an LLC over a Corporation:  No Double Taxation.


As a quick primer on business entities, there essentially four types of entities most businesses consider utilizing:  (a) a corporation, (b) a limited partnership, (c) an S Corp or (d) an LLC.  As a simple explanation, a limited partnership is generally not as popular for start ups because it requires at least one partner have the status of a General Partner, meaning that partner has unlimited liability (which most entrepreneurs do not want to risk for obvious reasons).  An S Corp is formed as corporation but is taxed like a partnership, and thus the business entity is not subject to a separate tax (discussed more fully below); however, there are restrictions on S Corps (including that they are limited to 100 shareholders, none of which can be foreigners, and there is no ability to create separate classes of shares), which may restrict the ability to bring in additional shareholders.  Essentially, then, that leaves the corporation and the LLC as the popular choices for structuring a business.   


             1.  Taxation of a Corporation:   A corporation is taxed on any net income (profit) at the corporate entity level, and if there is a distribution to the shareholders (of net profit), each shareholder is then taxed on this distribution (a dividend).   The result, is a double taxation:

                   (a) corporate level: 15% to as high as 35% depending on level of net income, and

                   (b) shareholder level 15% on the dividend distributions to shareholder.



The double taxation arises from the fact that the entity itself and the shareholders each have a separate taxable identity and each are required to file a tax return and pay taxes on net income (as to a corporation) or dividends/distributions (as to a shareholder).  Of course, the corporation generally does not have to make a distribution to shareholders, but that may not be a satisfactory solution for a closely held company where the shareholders are expecting distributions of profits.  

           2.   Taxation of a Limited Liability Company:   LLC’s provide all the protection of a corporation (thus unlike a partnership, the members of an LLC have limited personal liability for the LLC’s debts).  But, in contrast to a corporation, an LLC is not classified for tax purposes as a separate entity, rather it is a “pass through”. 

               (a) Single-Member LLCs: 

                    (i) Unless the member makes a different tax election, single member LLCs are classified as a disregarded entity.  As such, the LLC entity is not subject to a tax separate from the member and all income or deductions of the LLC go on the owner's tax return.  For LLCs that operate an active trade or business, this means the income and deductions are listed on "Schedule C Profit or Loss From Sole Proprietorship" of the sole member.  If rental property is held through the LLC, then the owner would include income and deductions on the owner's "Schedule E Supplemental Income and Loss."

                   (ii) Self-Employment Tax:  As a single member LLC, the owner also must pay self employment tax consisting of FICA and Medicare at a rate of 13.3% for 2011 and 15.3% for 2012.  While self employment tax is an additional burden that corporation shareholders don't pay, the single-member gets a deduction on their income of fifty percent of the self employment tax.  However, often a shareholder in closely held/small companies will be paid a salary for services provided to the corporation.  While the corporation will pay part of FICA and Medicare, there may ultimately no real savings as compared to the  LLC because the owner is responsible for the taxes, whether it is paid through the business (as with a corporation), or directly by the owner (for a single member LLC).  One common thought is to avoid any payroll tax in a corporation by not paying the sole shareholder a salary; however, this defeats the tax benefit gained from reducing the taxable net income of the corporation itself.  

               (b) Multiple Member LLC:

                    (i) An LLC with more than one member is by default classified as a partnership.  Like single-member LLCs, co-owned LLCs do not pay taxes on business income.  Instead, the income and deductions of the LLC are reported on a partnership return.  However, the LLC still does not pay a separate entity tax. The limited liability company itself files an informational LLC tax return (Form 1065) and issues a K-1 to each member.  Instead, the income and deductions are divided among the members based on the economic terms set forth in the Operating Agreement (or, if there is no operating agreement, in accordance with each membership percentage in the LLC).  The members in turn receive a K-1 from the LLC, which shows the allocation of the member's share of the income and deductions of the LLC.

                    (ii) Self Employment Taxes.  A member in a multi-member LLC also pays self-employment taxes.  LLC taxes are paid by each member according to his/her share of the profits and losses.  Like in a single-member LLC, each member files a Schedule C and calculates self-employment tax on Schedule SE.
 
             (c) Non-resident Alien:  Unlike an S Corp, a non-resident alien can be the member of an LLC, and therefore it is worth noting that non-resident alien LLC members do not have to pay self-employment tax.


             (d) Minimizing Self Employment Tax:  There may be ways to minimize the self employment tax owed by LLC members, including


                    (i) if a member is a passive owner (i.e., not involved in management of the LLC), the distributions may be exempt from self employment tax, but the tax regulations are complicated and the exemption should be discussed with your tax advisor;


                    (ii) an owner who receives repayments of a loan and payments on lease from the LLC may be able to avoid self employment tax on such payments.   


       3. Start Up Expenses and Losses:  When starting a business there is an expectation that the partners will have substantial start up expenses, and for most businesses it may be months or years before it shows a profit or can make distributions to its owners.  For a corporation, the expenses/losses are deductions from income of the entity for determining the tax liability of the corporation.  The LLC has the advantage that, as with the profits, the expenses/losses are similarly allocated to the members individually who thereby benefit from the ability to take these allocated deductions on their individual tax return. 


Of course, before deciding the appropriate entity for your business, issues such as taxes and other aspects of the various types of entities should be discussed with your professional advisor.  Your particular financial or tax situation may favor choosing one form of entity over another. 


The next installment of this Article will discuss how the flexibility of the LLC has made it an attractive business structure for new businesses.    



Disclaimer:  The discussions in this blog do not constitute legal advise nor create any attorney-client relationship.  You are urged to seek the advice of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters.

      

Monday, November 7, 2011

Ten Legal Mistakes Made by Start-Ups: Bringing in a Partner Without a Proper Agreement (#8)

Often start-ups are so excited about bringing in a partner who can offer financing, desperately needed services, or play an advisory role/provide professional advice that the start-up brushes aside the need for a proper agreement detailing the rights and obligations of the new partner.

Myth #8:  "This is a start-up and we should be happy to have this new partner so let's not worry scare the partner off by demanding a formal agreement."  

If you are involved with a start-up you certainly understand the pressure to attract partners who can offer financing, professional services, or even play an advisory role.   All too often, however, this anxious desire to attract such a partner will lead founders to opt to put aside the need to document the rights and obligations of the partner; it may be because of the desire to avoid additional legal costs or simply feeling that asking the potential partner to sign an agreement will scare the partner off.  So instead the founder decides to have a simple handshake and issue the new partner shares or membership interests representing a percentage in the business.  In no uncertain terms, this is a serious mistake for a number of reasons, including the following:

    1.  If this is an LLC, do you have an Operating Agreement?  If this is a corporation, do you have detailed by laws/shareholder agreement?  If this is a partnership, do you have a partnership agreement?  If the answer is no, then the new partner has financial and voting interests based on the interests granted in the entity; and any rights and obligations are otherwise governed by the relative state LLC, Corporate or Partnership law.  Do you know what the governing law says as far as the financial and management rights of members (LLC)/shareholders (corporation)/partners (partnership)?  If not, you may be very surprised later if a dispute arises, at which point it will be too late. 

  2.  What if the new partner fails to do what was promised, dies or becomes disabled?  You could have avoided this issue by having the interests vest over time (see http://mybizlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/ten-legal-mistakes-made-by-start-ups_28.html) and/or giving the entity and other partners a buyout right (see http://mybizlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/shareholder-agreements-define-buyout.html).  If you do not attend to this issue, you could be stuck with a non-performing partner and perhaps hanging your hopes on the expensive and time consuming process of proving an oral agreement in court.

  3.  The partner decides to sell or transfer its interests to a third party you don't know or don't like (or both).  Can the partner do this?  It depends what the governing law says, but if you had a clear statement of the rights of the partners and a right of first refusal there would be no issue.

  4.  The new partner just signed a contract binding the entity, one which you would not have approved.  In New York, an LLC is deemed to be member-managed unless the Operating Agreement states otherwise, and a s a result each member has the authority to bind the entity.  Solution, an Operating Agreement setting forth that the entity is manger-managed, naming the manager, and thereby removing the authority the new member to bind the entity.  (See http://mybizlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/management-of-llc-member-or-manager.html).  Also, LLC and Corporations (but not SCorps) are very flexible structures allowing for the creation of different classes of partners, and therefore you can create a class that has only financial rights and no management/voting rights.

  5.  You just learned the new partner is starting a competing business or offering services to a competitor and is also trying to solicit your employees, customers, and business partners.  If the partner is using trade secrets you still can take seek legal recourse, but again proving the claim is costly and regardless does not address some of the other concerns, like solicitation of your employees.  While enforcing a non-competition agreement can be challenging and requires careful consideration before drafting, you should include confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions in the operating agreement/shareholder agreement/partnership agreement.

  6.  The partner developed services, an application or created products that include certain intellectual property rights and now claims ownership of those products/services or of the underlying intellectual property.  In fact, the partner is filing patent claims and then plans on licensing the rights to third parties.  You could have avoided any issue with an  invention agreement agreement assigning the rights to the inventions and intellectual property to the business.  (See  http://mybizlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/ten-legal-mistakes-made-by-start-ups_24.html).                      

  7.  You have a dispute with the new partner, who files a groundless lawsuit in Buffalo, and the other members and the business are located in Long Island.  You realize the added burden of litigating a dispute in a court hundreds of miles from where the business is based, and while the your  lawyer explains there may be grounds for a motion arguing Buffalo is not a convenient forum for the dispute, the motion will create additional litigation costs.  You could have avoided this issue with a venue clause stating all disputes are to be filed in Nassau County, for example.  It also may have been beneficial to include a provision awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party, giving the partner pause before filing baseless claims.  

While the above is in some ways a recap of prior issues that have been discussed in this blog, the take away here should be that even a start-up has a right to demand a new partner sign an agreement clearly delineating the rights and obligations of the members of the entity.  If the new partner refuses or wants you to believe a handshake is enough, you should be very suspicious.  There is simply no substitute for a well-drafted agreement to avoid the myriad legal issues that can arise between business partners. 

Disclaimer:  The above is for discussion purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor create any attorney-client relationship.  There is no substitute for legal advice from an experienced business/corporate lawyer.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Ten Legal Mistakes Made By Start Ups: Vendor/Customer Agreements (#7)

Continuing with the discussion of ten common legal mistakes made by start-ups, mistake number seven focuses on the importance of vendor/customer contracts.

Myth #7:  I don't need vendor/customer agreements or I can just copy one from a similar business.

OK, on your way to work you dropped off some shirts at the dry cleaner, and the proprietor was astute enough to give you a ticket with detailed terms and conditions relating to the laundry service provided.  When you get to work, you are happy to see one of your web developers has just finished signing up a new customer who wants your company to design an expensive website.  The customer signs your order form, which details the specs for the site, and payment terms.  Then, you start thinking: why is it that your neighborhood dry cleaner has more detailed terms and conditions with respect to dry cleaning your shirts than your company has for a several thousand dollar project?   

The problem is that small businesses often think that they don't need contracts with their customers or that a very simple order form is all that is needed.  Returning to our web developer above, think of some of the possible issues that can arise without a properly drafted customer agreement:

     1.  After three weeks work, the customer wants to terminate the project, stating it is unhappy with the progress.

          Comment:  A properly drafted customer agreement, whether for a website developer, or for any other product or service provider, should detail payment terms (i.e., progress payments), grounds for termination by each party, and may even spell out liquidated damages in the event of a breach of the contract by the client.

     2.  With each delivery of website versions, the customer asks for change, after change, after change or argues the website does not reflect what was ordered.  Does the customer have a right to require multiple changes or reject every version arguing it is just not satisfied?

         Comment:  Customer agreements should detail all material terms relating to customer changes, delivery and acceptance of the product/services.  In addition, the agreement should detail the rights of the client to review/test the deliveries and the method for requesting changes.  

     3.  What if six months after the website goes live, a feature stops working, the customer claims extensive business losses, are you responsible?

        Comment:  Any customer agreement needs clear representations and warranties and a limitation on liability provision.  Consider the following issues and include clear terms in the customer agreement:

                  a.  What representations is the vendor willing to make?

                  b.  What warranties, if any, is the vendor willing to give?

                  c.  If there is a claim under the warranty, what are the obligations of the vendor? 
                 
                  d.  What is the scope of the limitation on liability; can you restrict liability to actual fees paid to  vendor? 

      
    4.  The customer is from California and the vendor is from New York; the customer breached the contract; service of process has been difficult and expensive to pursue.

         Comment:  In addition to choice of law and venue for any lawsuit, the contract can include terms for service by mail and even the right for the prevailing party in any lawsuit to recover legal fees.

    5.  The vendor copied a contract found on the Internet or purchased one from a legal website.

         Comment:  You get what you pay for!  Don't learn the hard way (i.e., after the fact) that the vendor agreement is inadequate for your business, for example:

                  a.  The form does not state anything about who owns certain features or content included in the website, some of which are proprietary.  The question becomes who owns those features/content when the vendor intended to retain ownership and simply provide the client a license to use them.  

                  b.  A well constructed customer agreement will detail terms as to any rights the vendor wishes to retain in certain intellectual property.

                  c.  Is there an indemnification provision in the event a thrid party seeks a claim against the vendor based on a product or service delivered to the customer. 
BotTom Line:  The above are just some examples why a handshake or a simple customer receipt/order form is a mistake.  The absence of clear terms can lead to disputes and expose the vendor to liability unnecessarily.



Monday, October 31, 2011

It's Never Too Early for Tax Advice/The 83(b) Election (Mistake #6)

While this 6th installment of the Ten Legal Mistakes Made by Start Ups examines the "83(b) Election," the underlying theme is the need to engage an accountant who understands your tax profile and a lawyer who understands the accountant.

Myth #6:  "I don't need to be concerned with tax issues because this is just a start up."

I constantly hear founders state that they can wait on tax advice, and for that matter legal advice, until they can "afford it."  To that, my response is that as a founder you cannot afford to wait.  One significant example relates to the common mistake founders make in failing to make the 83(b) election as it relates to restricted stock.   

If the start up engaged an experienced business lawyer, the founders would have received advice regarding the importance of granting restricted stock (i.e., stock that is subject to forfeiture) that vests upon certain dates or milestones. Under Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code, a founder can make an election resulting in the acceleration of the taxable event to the date of the grant rather than the date the stock actually vests.  This is commonly referred to as the 83(b) Election.   

What is the advantage of the 83(b) Election?  It allows the founder to pay ordinary income tax on the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date rather than the vesting date.  The assumption being that stock in a start up company will have substantially less value than at the later vesting date when presumably the value of the company has increased, and with it the fair market value of the shares.  The 83(b) Election means the founder will likely pay very little tax on the granted restricted stock.  If, after the stock vests, the company and thus the shares have appreciated, the founder will pay capital gains tax on any eventual sale of the shares.

What if I fail to make the 83(b) Election?  The failure of the founder to make a timely 83(b) Election means that when the stock vests, the founder will have to pay tax as of the vesting date.  While the founder may be pleased that the company is doing well and its valuation has dramatically increased from the start-up days, the founder will be very unhappy to learn of a tax liability based on the value of the shares at the time of vesting at tax rates applicable for ordinary income.

When must the 83(b) Election be made?  The election must be made within 30 days of the grant of the shares by filing notice with the IRS

Lesson:  An 83(b) Election is just one significant pitfall that start ups/founders should be aware of -- demonstrating why mistake number six made by start ups is not just the failure to make the 83(b) Election, but the broader mistake of failing to engage a good accountant and a business lawyer to address important tax matters facing all start-ups.