S Corp vs, s corporation versus llc.#S #corporation #versus #llc


#

What would you like to talk about?

S corporation versus llc

S Corp vs. LLC

If you are the only owner of your business, you may have decided to form a limited liability company, or LLC, to protect your personal assets. But you may also have heard that, for tax purposes, you should be an “S corporation.”

This article will explain the differences between the two business classifications, and also show you how you can form a single-member LLC and still take advantage of S corp. taxation.

The exact LLC definition varies slightly from state to state but, basically, an LLC is a business entity that is legally separate from its owners, who are known as “members.” An LLC can have one member or many members.

Small business owners often choose to form an LLC instead of a corporation because LLCs offer more flexibility in the way they are managed and usually have fewer recordkeeping and reporting obligations than corporations.

What is an S corporation?

Unlike an LLC or a C corporation, an S corporation is not a type of business entity. The S corp. designation refers to the way a business has chosen to be taxed under the Internal Revenue Code.

For tax purposes, the IRS classifies businesses as sole proprietorships, partnerships, C corporations, or S corporations. There is no “LLC” tax classification and, therefore, LLCs are taxed as though they are another type of business.

The IRS automatically taxes single-member LLCs as sole proprietorships and multi-member LLCs as partnerships. But an LLC can also choose to be taxed as a C corporation or as an S corporation.

What’s the difference between sole proprietorship LLC taxes and LLC taxed as S corp. taxes? For many small businesses, the main difference is in the way business owners pay Medicare and Social Security taxes—also known as “self employment taxes.” Some LLC owners can save money on these taxes by choosing S corp. taxation.

If a Single-Member LLC Is Taxed as a Sole Proprietorship

The LLC member reports business income and expenses on his or her personal income tax return and pays personal income tax on company profits. The member is considered self-employed and thus is responsible for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes on those profits.

(As of 2016, self-employed individuals pay a 12.4 percent Social Security tax on the first $118,500 of income, and a 2.9 percent Medicare tax on all income, with an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax imposed on high earners. Employees are subject to these same taxes, but the employer pays half and the the employee pays half.)

If a Single-Member LLC Is Taxed as an S Corporation

The member can be considered an employee of the business. An owner-employee must be paid a reasonable salary. The LLC will report the salary as a business expense, and the owner will report both the salary and any remaining business profit on his or her personal tax return.

However, unlike the sole proprietor LLC owner who must pay Medicare and Social Security taxes on all profits, the S corporation and its owner will only pay these taxes on the owner’s salary. The remaining profits are not subject to these taxes.

Here’s One Example

Suppose you are an LLC owner taxed as a sole proprietor and your business makes $100,00 profit. You will report $100,000 of income, and you will pay Social Security tax and Medicare tax on the entire $100,000.

Now suppose you have elected to be taxed as an S corp. and have determined that your reasonable salary is $50,000. Your salary is a business expense, so the business now has a $50,000 profit. You will still report $100,000 of income [$50,000 of salary plus $50,000 of profit], but you and your business will only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $50,000 salary.

S Corp. or LLC—Which Is Right for You?

The IRS’s S corporation definition makes it clear that not every business qualifies to be taxed as an S corp. Most single-member LLCs will qualify, but you can’t choose S corp. taxes if any of these apply to your single-member LLC:

  • It is a foreign LLC
  • The owner is a nonresident alien
  • It is structured so that the owner is actually a corporation or partnership

(Multi-member LLCs that have more than 100 members also cannot be taxed as S corporations.)

To evaluate the benefits of S corp. vs. LLC taxation, you must consider whether changing to S corp. tax status will save you money. Find out what a reasonable salary would be for a person who does what you do. The IRS scrutinizes owner-shareholder salaries, so it is important not to set an artificially low salary for yourself. Then ask, if you paid yourself that salary, would your business have any profit left over? If the answer is no, then S corp. taxation may not help you.

If your business profits are greater than your reasonable salary, S corp. taxation may save you money. Consider also that your tax return will be somewhat more complex and, if you don’t have other employees, you will have to set up tax withholding. An accountant can advise you on other benefits and consequences of choosing LLC vs. S corp. taxation for your business.

If you’ve already formed your LLC but are unhappy with the tax consequences headed your way, you can change your tax status. In general, you can elect LLC S corp. status at any time during the tax year prior to the year you want the election to take effect, or during the first two and a half months of the current year. New businesses have approximately 75 days to elect a different tax status.

Before deciding on S corporation vs. LLC taxation, be sure you carefully evaluate the various pros and cons and seek advice from a business lawyer or accountant.

Legalzoom can help you start a business. Whether you decide to start an LLC or start an S corp, the process is simple and affordable. If you’re not sure which business structure is right for you, our legal plan attorney can answer your questions about LLCs and S corps and help you decide.


LSC – Legal Services Corporation: America s Partner for Equal Justice #s


#

How Legal Aid Works

Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is an independent nonprofit established by Congress in 1974 to provide financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans. LSC promotes equal access to justice by providing funding to 133 independent non-profit legal aid programs in every state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories. LSC grantees serve thousands of low-income individuals, children, families, seniors, and veterans in 813 offices in every congressional district. Read more about the vital role legal aid plays in a just America.

Fulfills Critical Need at Low Cost

Investing in civil legal aid provides access to justice—a fundamental American value, reflected in the first line of our Constitution and in the closing words of our Pledge of Allegiance. The need for civil legal assistance has never been greater. Today, low-income Americans continue to struggle to keep their jobs, stay in their homes, and provide basic necessities for their families. Without adequate funding for legal aid, low-income Americans will be unable to access courts effectively to protect their legitimate legal interests.

Assures Fairness in the Justice System

Civil legal aid provides access to legal help for people to protect their livelihoods, their health, and their families. Civil legal aid makes it easier to access information through easy-to-understand forms, legal assistance, representation, and self-help centers to enable people to know their rights – regardless of their income.

Provides Critical Constituent Services

LSC grantees help constituents who live in households with annual incomes at or below 125% of the federal poverty guidelines. LSC-funded legal aid ensures that eligible constituents will not have to navigate the legal system alone. Eligible clients include the working poor, veterans and military families, homeowners and renters, families with children, farmers, the disabled, and the elderly.


Best Interest Rate on Senior Citizens Bank Fixed Deposits- July 2017 #fd


#

Best Interest Rate on Senior Citizens Bank Fixed Deposits July 2017

Highest Interest Rate on Bank Fixed Deposits for Senior Citizens July 2017

The post lists down the rate of interest on Bank fixed deposits for Senior Citizens as of July 4, 2017.

You might want to bookmark this page as the FD interest rates would be updated every month. Would help you in better decision making.

Fixed Deposit Highlights:

  • Most banks offer FDs for tenure of 7 Days to 10 Years.
  • The Ratnakar Bank IDBI Bank do offer fixed deposits up to 20 years too .
  • For very short Term Deposits the interest rate is similar to that of Savings Account and so you should not worry about FD. Also Interest up to Rs 10,000 in Saving Account is Tax free .
  • Most banks compound interest quarterly
  • Banks offer Loan/Overdraft against the amount available in Fixed Deposit. The interest is generally 0.5% to 1% more than that offered to FD.
  • TDS (Tax deduction at source) at the rate of 10% is deducted, if the interest income is more than Rs 10,000 in financial year per bank. You can fill Form15G/H
  • You can fill Form15G/H if you want to avoid TDS .
  • There might be penalty for pre-mature withdrawal of Fixed Deposits

Fixed Deposit Interest Rates:

The highest interest rate is offered by The Deutsche Bank at 8.25% for 1 to 2 years Fixed Deposit.

For comparing the best interest rates on fixed deposits over different duration of investment, we have it divided into following 5 slabs:

  • FD for Less than 1 Year
  • FD for 1 to 2 years
  • FD for 2 to 5 Years
  • FD for 5 to 10 years
  • FD for More than 10 years

We show the highest interest rates on fixed deposits for the above duration buckets. We have also compared the best interest rates on offer by that being offered by State Bank of India (SBI), ICICI Bank and Post Offices.

Interest Rate (Senior Citizens) for FD Less than 1 Year:

The highest interest rate is offered by The Ratnakar Bank (241 days to 364 days) at 7.60% .

Shankar Iyer says:

I suppose there has to be an extensive study before stats are pur out esp. with reference to Ratnakar Bank. If you could check Varacha Bank, Surat Peoples Bank, Sutex Bank, Sarvoday Coop Bank ( all coop banks in Surrat) whose financials are available and NPAs are available for view. These give better returns than Ratnakar. Also, see Gujarat Rajya Karmachari Coop Bank. Investments upto Rs. 1 lac is insured. Also, the investor needs to be educated on the maneouveing of applicant names while opening accounts with coop banks, so that only the benefit of sr citizen is obtained, but the deposits are also insured.

I agree with your views and you can use various combinations of names of account holders to get benefit of deposit insurance. Historically co-operative banks have been riskier and so they offer higher interest rate. Also claiming insurance in case of default is not easy and it may take time. So it s individuals call weather to take risk for slightly higher interest rates.


VITAS Healthcare Corporation Acquires Houston-Based Hospice Provider, Solari Hospice Care #palliative #radiation

#solari hospice

#

VITAS Healthcare Corporation Acquires Houston-Based Hospice Provider, Solari Hospice Care

April 02, 2013 04:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time

MIAMI–( BUSINESS WIRE )–Chemed Corporation (“Chemed”) (NYSE: CHE) today announced that its VITAS Healthcare Corporation (“VITAS”) subsidiary has acquired the operating assets of Houston-based Solari Hospice Care effective April 1, 2013. In Houston, Solari Hospice Care serves approximately 60 patients and also operates a free-standing hospice inpatient facility that provides high acuity care to up to 12 patients.

VITAS, the nation’s leading provider of end-of-life care, currently serves more than 1,200 patients in Texas, including 251 in Houston. As part of the transaction, VITAS will enter into a long-term lease of the Solari Hospice Care inpatient facility. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

“VITAS’ acquisition of Solari Hospice Care reflects our commitment to serving patients and their families by offering access to the highest quality end-of-life care,” VITAS Chief Executive Officer Timothy O’Toole said. “We are pleased to welcome Solari Hospice Care to VITAS and look forward to expanding our presence in Houston as we serve the city’s end-of-life needs.”

Listed on the New York Stock Exchange and with headquarters in Cincinnati, Chemed Corporation (http://www.chemed.com ) operates two wholly owned subsidiaries: VITAS Healthcare and Roto-Rooter. VITAS is the nation’s largest provider of end-of-life hospice care and Roto-Rooter is the nation’s leading provider of plumbing and drain cleaning services.

VITAS Innovative Hospice Care. a pioneer and leader in the hospice movement since 1978, is the nation’s leading provider of end-of-life care. With headquarters in Miami, VITAS (pronounced VEE-tahs) operates 51 hospice programs in 19 states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin). VITAS employs 11,631 professionals who care for terminally ill patients daily, primarily in the patients’ homes, but also in the company’s 36 inpatient hospice units as well as in hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living communities/residential care facilities for the elderly. At the conclusion of the fourth quarter of 2012, VITAS reported an average daily census of more than 14,400. Visit www.vitas.com.

Statements in this press release or in other Chemed communications may relate to future events or Chemed’s future performance. Such statements are forward-looking statements and are based on present information Chemed has related to its existing business circumstances. Investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements are subject to inherent risk that actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Further, investors are cautioned that Chemed does not assume any obligation to update forward-looking statements based on unanticipated events or changed expectations.

Contacts





Ohio Defamation Law #ohio #corporation #law


#

Welcome to the website of the Digital Media Law Project. The DMLP was a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society from 2007 to 2014. Due to popular demand the Berkman Klein Center is keeping the website online, but please note that the website and its contents are no longer being updated. Please check any information you find here for accuracy and completeness.

Primary links

Legal Resources for Digital Media

Ohio Defamation Law

Note: This page covers information specific to Ohio. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide.

Elements of Defamation

The elements of a defamation claim in Ohio are essentially similar to the elements discussed in the general Defamation Law section, with the following exceptions and clarifications:

Defamation Per Se

Ohio recognizes that certain statements constitute defamation per se. These statements are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory and are assumed to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, without further need to prove that harm. Ohio has a broad definition of defamation per se. In contrast to most states, which limit defamation per se to three or four specific categories of statements, Ohio defines the term as any statement that reflects upon the character of [the plaintiff] by bringing him into ridicule, hatred, or contempt, or affects him injuriously in his trade or profession.” Becker v. Toulmin, 138 N.E.2d 391, 395 (Ohio 1956). A statement can constitute defamation per se only if it conveys its negative meaning directly, not by innuendo or implication.

Public and Private Figures

A public official is a government employee or official whose position has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it, beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all government employees. See Scott v. News-Herald, 496 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ohio 1986). Ohio courts have found law enforcement officials to be public officials, including a sheriff, a deputy sheriff, a university police officer, a bailiff, a chief probation officer, and the chief of the criminal section of a city law department. Other examples of public officials include a county treasurer, a county engineer, a municipal law director, a city council member, and members of the Board of Education.

In defining all-purpose and limited-purpose public figures, Ohio courts follow Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.. 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1972). All-purpose public figures are those who have achieved pervasive fame and influence. Examples include celebrities, professional athletes, and similarly famous people.

A limited-purpose public figure is someone who injects himself or herself into a particular public controversy. The determination of whether a particular individual qualifies as a limited-purpose public figure depends on the (1) plaintiff’s access to the media; and (2) the extent to which the plaintiff, by virtue of his or her position in the community or involvement in a matter of public concern, can be said to invite public comment or attention. Examples of individuals and organizations deemed limited-purpose public figures by Ohio courts include:

  • the owner of a private art school (for purposes of discussing its administration);
  • a retired schoolteacher who worked for the public school system for 30 years, regularly attended and voiced concerns at school board meetings, and had his own talk show entitled One Man’s Opinion where he discussed matters relating to the board (for purposes of discussing his statements and conduct at a board meeting); and
  • a restaurant and its owner (for purposes of review of the restaurant).

Actual Malice and Negligence

In defamation suits brought by private figure plaintiffs, Ohio courts require a plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant failed to act reasonably in attempting to discover the truth or falsity or defamatory character of the publication. Landsdowne v. Beacon Journal Publ’g, 512 N.E.2d 979, 984 (Ohio 1987). The Ohio test is similar to an ordinary negligence standard, but the clear and convincing evidence standard requires the plaintiff to put forward strong evidence of negligence.

Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e. knowing that the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on the standards and terminology mentioned in this subsection.

Privileges and Defenses

Ohio courts recognize a number of privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including substantial truth. the opinion and fair comment privileges. and the fair report privilege.

The Ohio Supreme Court has declined to recognize the neutral reportage privilege. The CMLP could identify no Ohio cases concerning the wire service defense.

There also is an important provision under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that may protect you if a third party -– not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction –- posts something on your blog or website that is defamatory. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.

Fair Report Privilege

  • Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.04 provides a privilege to accurate reports of state and local legislative and executive proceedings, as well reports reproducing the contents of any bill, ordinance, report, resolution, bulletin, notice, petition, or other document presented, filed, or issued in such a proceeding. A plaintiff can defeat this privilege by showing that the defendant acted with actual malice.
  • Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.05 provides a privilege to accurate reports of the return of any indictment, the issuance of a warrant, the arrest of any person accused of a crime, and the filing of any affidavit, pleading, or other document in a civil or criminal court case, as well as fair an impartial reports of the contents of these documents. A plaintiff can defeat this privilege by showing that the defendant (1) acted with actual malice. (2) failed to publish a reasonable written explanation or contradiction offered by the plaintiff, or (3) failed to publish, upon request of the plaintiff, the subsequent determination the lawsuit or case.

To take advantage of the fair report privilege, you do not need to quote the official record verbatim, but it must be a substantially accurate report, which means the report conveys the essence of the official record.

Neutral Reportage Privilege

The Ohio Supreme Court has declined to recognize the neutral reportage privilege. See Young v. Morning Journal. 669 N.E.2d 1136, 1138 (Ohio 1996).

Wire Service Defense

The CMLP could not identify any cases concerning the wire service defense in Ohio. If you are aware of any cases, please contact us.

Statute of Limitations for Defamation

The statute of limitations for defamation in Ohio is one (1) year. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11 (1981).

The status of the single publication rule in Ohio is not settled. For a definition of the single publication rule, see the Statute of Limitations for Defamation page.


VITAS Healthcare Corporation Acquires Houston-Based Hospice Provider, Solari Hospice Care #orlando #florida

#solari hospice

#

VITAS Healthcare Corporation Acquires Houston-Based Hospice Provider, Solari Hospice Care

April 02, 2013 04:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time

MIAMI–( BUSINESS WIRE )–Chemed Corporation (“Chemed”) (NYSE: CHE) today announced that its VITAS Healthcare Corporation (“VITAS”) subsidiary has acquired the operating assets of Houston-based Solari Hospice Care effective April 1, 2013. In Houston, Solari Hospice Care serves approximately 60 patients and also operates a free-standing hospice inpatient facility that provides high acuity care to up to 12 patients.

VITAS, the nation’s leading provider of end-of-life care, currently serves more than 1,200 patients in Texas, including 251 in Houston. As part of the transaction, VITAS will enter into a long-term lease of the Solari Hospice Care inpatient facility. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

“VITAS’ acquisition of Solari Hospice Care reflects our commitment to serving patients and their families by offering access to the highest quality end-of-life care,” VITAS Chief Executive Officer Timothy O’Toole said. “We are pleased to welcome Solari Hospice Care to VITAS and look forward to expanding our presence in Houston as we serve the city’s end-of-life needs.”

Listed on the New York Stock Exchange and with headquarters in Cincinnati, Chemed Corporation (http://www.chemed.com ) operates two wholly owned subsidiaries: VITAS Healthcare and Roto-Rooter. VITAS is the nation’s largest provider of end-of-life hospice care and Roto-Rooter is the nation’s leading provider of plumbing and drain cleaning services.

VITAS Innovative Hospice Care. a pioneer and leader in the hospice movement since 1978, is the nation’s leading provider of end-of-life care. With headquarters in Miami, VITAS (pronounced VEE-tahs) operates 51 hospice programs in 19 states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin). VITAS employs 11,631 professionals who care for terminally ill patients daily, primarily in the patients’ homes, but also in the company’s 36 inpatient hospice units as well as in hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living communities/residential care facilities for the elderly. At the conclusion of the fourth quarter of 2012, VITAS reported an average daily census of more than 14,400. Visit www.vitas.com.

Statements in this press release or in other Chemed communications may relate to future events or Chemed’s future performance. Such statements are forward-looking statements and are based on present information Chemed has related to its existing business circumstances. Investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements are subject to inherent risk that actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Further, investors are cautioned that Chemed does not assume any obligation to update forward-looking statements based on unanticipated events or changed expectations.

Contacts