Is it legal for a shareholder who receives no wages from company A to receive a reimbursement for business travel costs from company A? Is it legal for a shareholder who receives no wages from company A to receive a reimbursement for business travel costs from company A in United States? Shareholder pocketed zero dollars of the reimbursement. Shareholders receive wages from another business B unrelated to A.
If I do some business travel for your company then I send you a bill for my working time and my expenses, and I expect it to be paid. If your shareholder does some business travel for your company, they can do the same. If they don't charge you for the working time, good for your company. Just expect the IRS to look at this bill more carefully than usual to make sure this is not in reality a dividend payment. For example, if the business travel was &quot;two weeks in a five star hotel in Hawaii, all expenses paid&quot;, that wouldn't look quite right and cause trouble for both of you. PS: Cost of travelling to a company’s share holder meeting is not a business expense.
Without commenting on the relatively strange situation itself, it is still useful to actually read what was actually said than what was described in a letter from a third person, even if the relayed information is technically true. The supposed basis for the claim of a zero salary is from an email allegedly sent by the department head (appendix 15): In short, you are not teaching in 2022/2023 and you have not submitted the required outline of your research or other engagement. I am very sorry that we cannot establish that you will be doing any work expected of a faculty member. Thus we cannot pay you. Starting with the Fall semester, your pay will be reduced to zero and you will be placed on unpaid personal leave. Essentially, the professor is being put on an unpaid leave because allegedly he is not doing any work. Consequently, minimum wage laws are not engaged even if the professor is not exempt as teachers since he is not being required to do any work. In the U.S., employers generally can do this (unless a work contract provides otherwise); in many circumstances, it is called being laid off (though the term has attracted a permanent connotation in parts of North America) or being suspended. An indefinite unpaid leave can be considered constructive dismissal if the employer does not reasonably allow the employee to return to work. It may not be constructive dismissal if the unpaid leave is prescribed by binding employer policies or because the employee refuses to work (and the employer allows the employment relationship to continue). Even if it is constructive dismissal, it is not automatically wrongful.
Yes The directors of a company have a fiduciary duty to act within the law for the benefit of their shareholders - not to their customers, not to the government, not to the environment and not to the public. A lawsuit against the company will incur financial loss irrespective of if it is won or lost. It is difficult to see how it is in the shareholder's interest for the company to be enabling the funding of a lawsuit against it.
That is a very broad clause, broader than the default US rule for copyright, for example. (I know the question asked about the UK, I just happen to know the US copyright rule.) It would seem on the face of it to include independent research on a subject totally unrelated to the person's employment, done off the company's premises and not during normal work hours, but while the person was an employee.. Indeed it would arguably include the copyright to a novel written off premises and during off hours. Use of "course of employment" (instead of "term") would improve the provision. so would "as a part of his or her employment" or "closely related to the subject of his or her employment". Another possible restriction would be "Using the Company's facilities and/or equipment, or during normal working hours". However, my experience is that an employer will have drafted whatever language it uses through its company lawyer, and will be quite unwilling to alter it in any way. A prospective employee will probably be faced with a take-it-or-leave-it choice unless that person is a nearly indispensable figure to the company. One could send the company a certified letter saying, "When i signed the contract agreeing to {company language} I did not intend to include any developments made off company premises, not using company equipment, and unrelated to the subject or scope of my employment. I retain full rights to any such developments." Such a letter would help establish that there was no meeting of the minds to assign such non-employment-related developments or IP to the Company. How much weight it would have if the rights to such developments were the subject of a court case I am not sure.
That will depend on the specific provisions of Turkish law (in the example case) and the provisions of the tax treaty between Turkey and the US. The Turkish resident will probably have to file with Turkey. To what extent s/he will get credit for taxes paid to the US, and indeed to what extent income from a US company is taxable under Turkish law will depend on the specifics of Turkish law and of any treaty, and may well be different in a different country.
It is certainly possible to incorporate companies with the same name in two different states. If neither company does business in the other person's state under that name, it isn't actionable for either company. If one company was already doing business under its name in a state where another company is formed under that name, it would usually be possible to force the new company to cease and desist from using that name, either with an action directed at the infringer and the Secretary of State (or other official charged with business incorporations in a state) of that state, or in an action directly against the infringer alone. Also, even if a trademark isn't formally registered, it can arise at common law simply through use of a name in a particular market in a particular place. This is harder to prove and the remedies for violating a common law trademark a more limited, but it is not entirely unenforceable.
You cannot define "revenue" as profits. Indeed, you probably can't even deduct cost of goods sold. Revenue is the amount of money that a company brings in from selling goods and services (investment income is arguably more ambiguous, and loan proceeds would clearly not be revenue). In the absence of other indications, a court would probably look the generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) to define revenue, or perhaps definitions used by the U.S. Small Business Admnistration, or dictionary definitions, in the context of a contract. Whatever "revenue" means, it almost certainly doesn't mean "profits". Revenue makes more sense than profits in any case in this circumstance. They are trying to use a measure that is hard to manipulate, easy to determine from accounting records, easy to estimate in the absence of good record keeping, and that reflects the scale of the enterprise. Revenue is a standard measure of small v. large businesses for many purposes. Profit, in contrast, can be easily manipulated (e.g. through salaries paid to insiders and related party cost of goods sold contracts). Businesses are also much more likely to publicly disclose their revenues (and hence create evidence relevant to the contract) than to disclose their profits.
There is a clear conflict of interest - or the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest - here. On the one hand, you are supposed to be looking for a good deal for your employer - within reason, of course. On the other hand, you want to make as much money for yourself as you can by claiming as high a rental fee as is reasonable. Most employers have policies against this. This is like hiring your side company as a vendor. You should follow your employer's policies for making sure his is totally above board, or just stay elsewhere.