I find the term personally confusing when only one individual is involved. Most definitions of the word include multiple people. It would seem that's an unpopular opinion here. Meh, can't win them all.
It's about establishing and limiting legal liability. Being able to establish a solo business as a company means that you don't lose your house and possessions if your company fails.
There is very little liability protection for a single-member company. You are usually going to be personally liable for your actions, and can get sued individually along with the company. Incorporation / LLC does not protect you from acts where you are also personally liable, and it does not shield your personal assets in that case either.
This depends on the country. Most (single member) companies in EU countries have excellent protections in place for directors and shareholders as long as you don't do anything illegal.
What? This is 100% incorrect. Unless you make obvious errors, all of your personal assets are protected.
Like shareholders of a corporation, all LLC owners are protected from personal liability for business debts and claims. This means that if the business itself can't pay a creditor—such as a supplier, a lender, or a landlord—the creditor cannot legally come after an LLC member's house, car, or other personal possessions.
The main issue for single-member LLCs in the US is to actually operate it as a separate entity. Don't share assets, accounts, etc. Don't personally guarantee debt unless you absolutely have to (and then you'll be liable for that). And of course you're still liable if you personally break the law. If you hire an employee and they assault a customer or something, your company may be sued like any larger company, but they probably won't be able to pierce the veil and go after you personally to collect.
Comments
Not only is this completely wrong from a legal and business standpoint, why would we even need this as a society?
I find the term personally confusing when only one individual is involved. Most definitions of the word include multiple people. It would seem that's an unpopular opinion here. Meh, can't win them all.
It's about establishing and limiting legal liability. Being able to establish a solo business as a company means that you don't lose your house and possessions if your company fails.
There is very little liability protection for a single-member company. You are usually going to be personally liable for your actions, and can get sued individually along with the company. Incorporation / LLC does not protect you from acts where you are also personally liable, and it does not shield your personal assets in that case either.
Edit: in the US, that is.
This depends on the country. Most (single member) companies in EU countries have excellent protections in place for directors and shareholders as long as you don't do anything illegal.
This.
For Canadians: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs06641.html
What? This is 100% incorrect. Unless you make obvious errors, all of your personal assets are protected.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.htm...
Obvious errors being breaking the law, paying for your business loans with personal funds, etc.
The main issue for single-member LLCs in the US is to actually operate it as a separate entity. Don't share assets, accounts, etc. Don't personally guarantee debt unless you absolutely have to (and then you'll be liable for that). And of course you're still liable if you personally break the law. If you hire an employee and they assault a customer or something, your company may be sued like any larger company, but they probably won't be able to pierce the veil and go after you personally to collect.