![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om... But since the fed's don't have a minimum tax, no one cares about federal status. You should, because they'll want at least 15% of your retained earnings if you don't obtain non-profit status. Unless of course you have a company that is paying saleries, etc. That has nothing to do with anything. Paying salaries (and those filing requirements) are the same regardless of profit or non-profit, corporation, partnership or whatnot. Please do yourself a favour, now that you have your corporation and plane, by reading up on exactly what you've let yourself in for. Nolo press have a good selection of guides and books at www.nolo.com. Setting out on the right foot will be cheaper and less hassle than trying to correct mistakes later on. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om... "Casey Wilson" wrote in message news:ooe2c.70522 As a former president of the board of a nonprofit corporation in California I am very familiar with the requirements for a nonprofit corporation. Go to the IRS website and research the requirements for a federal 501(c)(3) determination before you go any further. IRS?? IRS is federal. The state of California does NOT determine the nonprofit status of a corporation. The IRS issues a letter of determination. The Attorney General and Franchise Tax Board, providing some other requirements are met, rely on the IRS determination. Incorrect. The California Franchise Tax Board does. The form is FTB 3500. There is no requirement that you file anything with the IRS before filing out this form (nor does the form even ask about Federal Status). In fact the state is VERY explicit that state non-profit status is determined independent of feder. You fill this out when you incorporate. Maybe not before, but... As copied from the California Codes CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE .. (f) "Nonprofit organization" means any organization qualifying under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in the preceding tax year... .....oh, by the way, the corporation is filing the 990 or 990EZ federal income tax statements, right? The one at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990-ez.pdf? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om... My graduate law class just covered legal entities. By luck my partner and I had registered our Mooney in a Mutual Benefit Corp (C-corp). What is a "Mutual Benefit Corp"? A non-profit? As I remember, you'll need to file more papers to avoid the minimum franchise tax of $800 (CA), and will need to continue to pay that fee until your status is approved (which can take over a year). Had we not, the attorney teaching the class said we would probably be considered "Partners" under the eyes of the law. If we had just put the plane in our names we would have been "Partners". As near as I can tell "Partners" is the laws punishment for not doing anything else, "Partners" happens automatically by default. "Partners" is the worse case scenario because it comes with unlimited liability. There are other ways of protecting yourself against liability than forming a corp. The extra insurance is often cheaper than messing with the paperwork of maintaining a corp (if you can get a 'flat' policy). If your partner is driving to the airport and hits a dog, the dog's owner can sue you and take your house. Perhaps the next class will deal with "piercing the corporate veil". You might not be as enthusiastic about corporate ownership after that. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony Cox" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om... My graduate law class just covered legal entities. By luck my partner and I had registered our Mooney in a Mutual Benefit Corp (C-corp). What is a "Mutual Benefit Corp"? A non-profit? As I remember, you'll need to file more papers to avoid the minimum franchise tax of $800 (CA), and will need to continue to pay that fee until your status is approved (which can take over a year). A Mutual Benefit Corp is already set up as non-profit. Once to corp is approved you are already exempt from the $800/yr. You just need to file to show that you don't make money. Had we not, the attorney teaching the class said we would probably be considered "Partners" under the eyes of the law. If we had just put the plane in our names we would have been "Partners". As near as I can tell "Partners" is the laws punishment for not doing anything else, "Partners" happens automatically by default. "Partners" is the worse case scenario because it comes with unlimited liability. There are other ways of protecting yourself against liability than forming a corp. The extra insurance is often cheaper than messing with the paperwork of maintaining a corp (if you can get a 'flat' policy). Can you buy insurance to protect yourself against non-aviation activities your partner does while going to the airport? If your partner is driving to the airport and hits a dog, the dog's owner can sue you and take your house. Perhaps the next class will deal with "piercing the corporate veil". You might not be as enthusiastic about corporate ownership after that. It can actually be pretty tough to break, otherwise no one would ever both with corporations. However, you do have to careful. If you load a plane over gross and crash into someone, the corp is going to do you any good, but it won't hurt you either. -Robert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om... A Mutual Benefit Corp is already set up as non-profit. Once to corp is approved you are already exempt from the $800/yr. You just need to file to show that you don't make money. This must be new. When I was on the board of a flying club some years back, we had to apply for non-profit status (through the IRS, not CA). As I remember, it took over a year to come through. We also made money (well, had a small positive retained earnings) from time to time without having to pay tax. The point is that you don't *intend* to make money. Can you buy insurance to protect yourself against non-aviation activities your partner does while going to the airport? General liability insurance probably covers it. The point is not that a corporation is necessarily *wrong*, just that there are other ways to achieve what you want. Maintaining a corp is a pain in the arse, with big penalties if you bugger it up -- penalties for not filing things on time, worries about people piercing the corporate veil, directors being liable for errors and omissions. Talk to your insurance agent. Perhaps the next class will deal with "piercing the corporate veil". You might not be as enthusiastic about corporate ownership after that. It can actually be pretty tough to break, otherwise no one would ever both with corporations. However, you do have to careful. If you load a plane over gross and crash into someone, the corp is going to do you any good, but it won't hurt you either. Depends how tough your opponents lawyer is, and how much money *you* have! They may well try, and you'd have to defend. Even if you are squeaky clean, it'd be big bucks. It may even be that setting up the corporation deliberately to avoid personal liability is sufficient to invalidate it. And even if the liability in some accident is finally pinned on the corporation, you - as a director - may end up under the spotlight for not properly running the operation of the corporation. I've know wealthy people who have refused to be corporate officers because of just such concerns. One big advantage you've not touched on. Having the corp own the plane makes it much easier for 'partners' to come and go. And since the plane title doesn't change, there's no question about liability for use tax no matter which states the 'partners' live. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony Cox" wrote in message hlink.net...
There are other ways of protecting yourself against liability than forming a corp. The extra insurance is often cheaper than messing with the paperwork of maintaining a corp (if you can get a 'flat' policy). Another problem is that there is no insurance out there that guarantees no one will sue you and take your house away from you. Insurance relies on the assumption that anyone suing you will settle with the insurance company and choose not to ask the court to take your property. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight Again | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 119 | March 13th 04 02:56 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Nonsense: Il-76 could have "saved California from fires"... | Vicente Vazquez | Military Aviation | 9 | November 20th 03 02:09 PM |
CA Corp filing | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 6 | October 16th 03 10:56 AM |