Talk:Limited liability company/Archives/2011

United States of where?

When referring to national entities please use the full form and refrain from assuming that everyone else knows what you effective in 1978. Just a guess. 1Winston 12:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The limited company does not originate from Germany - it was established in Rome, awarded as a favour from the emperor (and so was rare).

Fintan 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the LLC does not equal the German GmbH, which is more like the corporation. There is no matching counterpart for the LLC in German law.--212.121.144.106 09:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous law student here: I specialize in LLCs, so I'll try to clear up some misunderstandings. (1) The Wyoming LLC Act was passed in 1977. (I've included a cite to the actual session law; you can use Westlaw, LexisNexis, or the Wyoming Legislature websites to confirm.) (2) The LLC does not originate in Germany, but it is based on a type of business form that originated in Germany. You will have to compare the Wyoming LLC Act to the German business form; the similarities are present, but not overwhelmingly so. (3) The LLC has absolutely nothing to do with Rome. The LLC is a hybrid of the corporate and partnership forms (see Keatinge, cited in the article), and exists solely to provide flow-through tax treatment coupled with limited investor liability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.142.115 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC) simple small nitpick. there really should be a disclaimer for anything where tax info is provided. (IANAL) also there might already be one on the law portal page (which i have not read) great idea though (freely accessible law database) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.160.252.26 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Since the article now includes info on the UK and Ireland, isn't the representation of the worldwide view fulfiled? Or is there another reason for that tag to stay there?

Given that LLC is strictly an american term, shouldn't UK/Ireland get their own article LLP? I can't see the point for this article to present a "worldwide view" of a topic that is inherently specific, except to provide a link to the LLP article (possibly in the form of a disambig link). -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No merge 69.109.161.247 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge

This discusses legal forms of organization in Britain. The concepts and names are different in Britain from the US.

If you must merge do not title it Limited Liability Company; but , use a title of like International Legal Forms of Business Organizations. Have separate sections for US, Britain, ect. .

Links

What is up with the constantly changing external links? Is there that much competition over LLC FAQ's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.185.211 (talk)

I agree it's become a bit silly. Could the editors who are changing the links please explain why they believe the link they champion is better so we can reach a consensus. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 03:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is why various editors (mostly anonymous IPs, but also User:Rweston42) are deleting the links. I added Nolo's link, but I'm hardly passionate about it being there. For what it's worth, two of the IPs' sole contributions were to this article. Shrug. --moof 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty obvious someone is promoting their own site under the How to Form an LLC link - keeps replacing the link to Nolo with their own. 1 of Wikipedia's flaws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.34.235.171 (talk)

I had originally thought that but when I looked through the history the evidence also supported the case of an infrequent editor promoting the site because they thought it a good resource (it's also quite possible for good editors to edit under IP addresses that change). Given that the nolo site is at least as commercial as the How-to-form site, it's not inconceivable that an editor who doesn't edit much might think someone else was just pushing nolo sites when the "perfectly good" link s/he put in appeared to be replaced by nolo whenever they came back. If they didn't like the nolo site, they might make the change even though they weren't connected.

In an attempt to both assume good faith and improve the article it seems like it would be more constructive to discuss which of the links improve the article the most. Reading through the two, the nolo site has a good reputation and seems a bit more general, but the how-to-form seems to have more comprehensive information available on the web-site. This may be because they aren't as general. It would be good if someone with a solid understanding of the legal situation in several states could comment on how good each site is from a national perspective (I'm assuming there's no point in looking for a site that covers these sorts of legal partnerships in this sort of way from an international perspective). --Siobhan Hansa 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed I could be wrong, but the vigilence with with this user(s) keeps changing the link back, and the fact that she/he/it is also deleting the Nolo link instead of adding a link, and leaving the Nolo one(s) - which I further agree are commercial, just as the link added is (nothing is sold on the site, but it appears most likely to be a Google ads money generating site [and it also contains some inaccuracies]). The Nolo one seems preferable at this time. Also, LLCs are not partnerships, and you are correct, there is no point in looking for international law, or even national law except as it relates to the IRS, as LLC's are creatures of state statute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.55 (talk • contribs)

Linked article contains errors - not sure why folks think it's so good. E.g., refers to "articles of incorporation", which LLCs don't have. Also alleges forming an LLC is easy and you should do it yourself (without noting that you should first decide if an LLC is appropriate and in what jurisdiction to form it). Further, obtaining a TIN is easy, not a "headache". Also claims that an operating agreement isn't required. This must be news to those in New York! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LAEsquire (talk • contribs).

Hi LAEsquire. Thanks for weighing in with your opinion. I suggest, since there are concerns about it and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, that we keep all links that appear to be offering advice out of the external links section and require such resources to provide more encyclopedic information about LLCs instead (like a review of significant case law related to them or a well respected article on their history, should we find such links). Other opinions? -- Siobhan Hansa 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If anyone wants to add it back, I would respectfully suggest making your case for it here first. (By the way, I have to add, the linked site said LLCs are easy to set up, but I have multiple clients every year, including two currently, that come to me to sort out problems with the do-it-yourself LLCs (& corps) they have set up incorrectly, sometimes costing $1000s to repair the damage that can be repaired (some can't), so I would have to disagree with that assessment.) LAEsquire LAEsquire

• The site said that LLCs were easy to set up (they are), not easy to set up correctly (which they are not). I get plenty of interesting legal work from people who have failed to consider some basic LLC issues because they were lulled into the simplicity of filling in a few blanks to create an LLC and now they have to figure out how (or if) they can get themselves out of a quagmire. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all that is said I had a link removed to and article that simply discussed the adavantages of a LLC for small businesses. It was remove because it supposedly contains the same information as Wikipedia article but that was not true. It is not a commerical link. Also, the my Article was more orginal than other links Bwclark1974 (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New link suggestion

• I am proposing to add an external link to an article I wrote - US LLC Overview & How-to Guide - because it provides a lot of information regarding LLC's (including: LLC taxation, formation, management and more). To be fair, I do own the site on which the article is written. However, since Wikipedia is not a how-to site, and sets to have encyclopedic content, I don't think the information is relevant inside the article. I do think it would benefit a reader who wants to know more about LLC's. Bfhappy 10:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This site is released under a GFDL license and does not seem to be linked to advertising a service or product as so many of these sorts of links are. It also looks like a good site to me - well written and nicely presented (though I'm not a lawyer, so my evaluation of the actual information isn't to be relied upon). But it doesn't yet have a significant reputation for good unbiased advice, and it is a wiki which does not yet have a significant wide editor base or a significant history of stability. Our guidelines would suggest it is not quite suitable for inclusion at the moment. -- SiobhanHansa 13:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia's guidelines towards wiki's I understand your response... I of course believe the situation of newness and history, needs time. Wiredtape is a new site, meant to act as a guide to bureaucracy, and it will take time for it to gain a wide editor base, significant history and a good reputation. The article is very thorough and I believe it may benefit a reader of the Wikipedia LLC article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfhappy (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Globalize

I added the globalize template to the page. Particularly the advantages and disadvantages sections have points relevant only to Americans. --24.222.124.6 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of the very worst US centric pages that I can find. The information about the UK is almost entirely flawed. Anyone reading this who was not talking about a US LLC would be entirely mislead. (anonymous comment)

Argh! The L.L.C. is a specific corporate form under U.S. law (well, actually under the laws of various U.S. states). Of course it is related to similar concepts in other legal systems, such as the U.K. private company limited by shares (Ltd.) and the German Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH), but it is not the same. The introduction to the article should clearly state that this is about the U.S. legal form. There already exist articles about corporations in general and about U.K. limited companies in particular. It makes no more sense to globalize the L.L.C. page than it makes to globalize the House of Lords page. --Macrakis 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states that all income of limited liability companies is taxed as ordinary income and is subject to FICA. That is incorrect. (unsigned comment by 69.118.212.15 2007-06-18T15:59:57)

Well, fix it (with sources, preferably). --Macrakis 18:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish this article, private company limited by shares, and articles on other variants would be merged to be rewritten with a world view because the basic form exits in many countries. It is basically a simplification of "corporation" with restrictions on ownership. I am currently improving the Chinese Wikipedia articles on types of companies. This business form exists in Chinese speaking world as well under various different names. In China, it is called "Limited liability company" (exact translation), in Taiwan it is called "Limited company", in Hong Kong it is "private company limited by shares" inherited from UK. I am finding it hard to interwiki link the article because of this confusion. --Voidvector (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

no mention of the french s.à r.l. --195.50.80.2 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What are examples of some LLCs that make the most money

Where is there a list based on how successful each is? What are some big name LLCs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iownatv (talk • contribs) 08:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Youtube and TNA Wrestling are some good examples of successful LLCs.-dstebbins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [[Image:

]]

llc & liquor license

With 2 people forming an LLC for a tavern, can only one person hold the liquor license, or does it have to be help by the LLC? Thank you. Wayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.27 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to french wikipedia?

Hi, the LLC in France is called "société à responsabilité limitée" and there is an article (in both english and french), but I don't know if it should be linked via [[en:thing]] ; if it should be noted somewhere (in the countries section); if the articles should be merged... My point is, the french page for the french "LLC" is linked to a english translation that contains no mention of the generic global thing, is it acceptable? Wikicracy! Just thoughts... (I'm going to post a similar note on this page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.133.96 (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Section labeled "LLC vs S corp formation: Factors to consider"

The section labled "LLC vs S corp formation: Factors to consider" appears to be a guide on how to avoid paying taxes. While I appreciate the advice, it seems out of place in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a how to guide for tax evasion. I really see no reason not to delete the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Protagoras (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference 4 - LLC taxed as S corporation - LegalZoom link

The LegalZoom link (ref #4) does not support or even mention the contention it is cited for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAEsquire (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Advantages

In the list of LLC advantages it says "Employees operate as a team (more cooperation, trust, optimism, motivation)" Teamwork is not exclusive to LLCs and is not required or it either. Most traditional corporations sections employees off into departments in which teamwork is just as likely to develop. As for what's in the parentheses, that is purely opinion based and has no place in an encyclopedia. If there are no arguments, I will delete that entry. --68.32.17.238 (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This comment was in the article and I moved it...

I cannot tell when was it placed or by whom.--Angelusgutmann (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ahora no se usa Empresas Unipersonales sino Sociedades por Acciones Simplificadas(SAS), porfavor ampliar el contenido al respecto..."