How do the rights and responsibilities of a shell company differ from corporations organized in other ways? For instance, does a shell company need to have a separate board of directors and bylaws, or can it be controlled through the governance of another company? Can such a company be managed by and answerable to only a single individual? One of the reasons for using a shell company is that &quot;Shell companies can be used to transfer assets from one company into a new one, while leaving the liabilities in the former company.&quot; My understanding is that a shell company might be reasonably used as a trustee for a trust, or to as a holding company of an operating company, or intangible assets. Does that mean that a shell company that is constructed to have no assets and no liabilities can sign contracts and take corporate actions on its own behalf, or can it only act as a conduit vehicle for the transactions of other companies? And what paperwork is necessary to perform this conduit function? Something like contracts or corporate resolutions?
A &quot;shell company&quot; is not a category of company recognized under state corporate laws, under which U.S. corporations are organized. It is subject to the same formality limitations as any other company. These requirements vary considerably from state to state. Many states authorize a corporation to have a single director on the board of directors who also serves as sole officer of the company, although some states require that there be more than one director, and/or that there be at least both a president and a corporate secretary to certify the validity of corporate actions and maintain its records. The modern trend is towards laxity in regulating the internal organizational matters of corporations, and to conduct business by written authorization to act without a meeting in lieu of resolutions adopted in board of directors meetings. The main state corporate law issue involving shell companies is the extent to which the directors and officers of a corporation controlled by another company may lawfully act in a manner that benefits the controlling company while harming the company to whom the directors and officers would ordinarily owe fiduciary duties, for example, by guarantying a debt owed by a sister company without receiving anything in return as consideration. The modern trend is to allow such actions without considering them to be a breach of fiduciary duty to the corporation acting against its own interests, but the law is not uniform across all U.S. states on this point. The analysis of whether a company is a &quot;shell company&quot; usually comes up when a determination is being made as to whether it should be ignored for the purposes of enforcing other laws. In the debtor-creditor situation (including tort creditors such as personal injury victims, as well a monetary debt creditors) the question normally comes up in the context of determining if it is permissible to &quot;pierce the corporate veil&quot; or the treat a shell company as undercapitalized for purposes of applying the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act or similar legislation, effectively disregarding the entity whose sole purpose is to inappropriately defeat valid creditors. In the tax context, some entities are required or allowed to file consolidated tax returns that disregard the existence of separate corporate entities, or in the case of single member limited liability companies as &quot;disregarded entities&quot; that have no separate existence for tax law purposes.
Is this actually true? Not really although there may be figments of truth woven in. First, the GDPR does not prevent tax authorities from determining layers of corporate ownership or investigating tax fraud. Second, your substantive tax liability depends upon the tax laws of the countries in question. If you owe taxes under a country's tax laws but the country can't find it, that makes you a tax criminal, and doesn't mean you don't owe the tax. Third, the exact rules on what triggers tax liability in mixed country fact patterns are highly technical and not fully uniform. If you actually do business abroad within the meaning of a country's tax laws in a way that is not subject to its taxes, then it is legal. But this scheme probably doesn't meet that standard under most country's tax laws. So you hire two local directors, as contractors, from country B. On the contract signed, they oversee the day to day operations and work for you as advisor since you're the only shareholder. So their existence, the contract and the structure show that the company is managed in country B, run in country B and has economic substance in country B. This way the offshore company isn't taxed in country A. This allows you to get dividends from the company tax free (after paying corporate taxes in country B) to your account in country A. A few thoughts on this specific example. If you truly are nothing but a passive source of funding for a company, then owning shares in this company is no different from owning shares in a public held company (e.g. BMW). The notion that dividends from the company are tax free in county A in that situation is very likely incorrect. Usually, dividends and other intangible income is taxable income in the country where they are received. Most likely, the dividends are income subject to taxation in country A. There is a concept in tax law which U.S. tax lawyers call the &quot;Economic Substance Rule&quot; which is also true, but with different names (most of these countries don't have English language tax terminology anyway) which means that when someone is going through the motions of conducting a transaction in a tax favored form when in substance, something different is really going on, the tax authorities can choose to tax the substance rather than the form of the transaction. So, if the really valuable work is being done by the shareholder without visible compensation, rather than by the local directors and managers, you the shareholder might be taxed on &quot;imputed income&quot; representing the fair market value of the services rendered, or treated as the true manager of the company in country B. Similar issues can arise when valuable intellectual property is transferred to the company without being duly reflected in a fair market value purchase of equity interests, a sale at fair market value, or a licensing agreement for royalty payments. Tax officials aren't limited to looking at paperwork. They can and do interview the human beings involved in interviews that those human beings are legally obligated to attend and cooperate with and to provide truthful information in with legal consequences for lying in those interviews. Even if no official documentation or public statements would tip off tax officials, a significant share of tax evasion cases are driven by whistleblowing by disgruntled former employees, ex-spouses, jilted significant others, mistreated business partners, and revengeful angry children who feel that they have been mistreated by their parents. Nothing in the GDPR prevents whistleblowing to tax authorities. Background In E.U. countries, closely held company ownership must be declared and recorded in a notary public's &quot;public records&quot; or a corporate register (unlike, for example, the United States, where, this information was only contained in the internal records of the company in most cases, although a new law called the Corporate Transparency Act effective January 1, 2022, or later if initial regulations aren't adopted, changes this status quo). E.U. directives expressly requires much more public disclosure by private companies than the U.S. more generally. For example, a recent Dutch overhaul of its rules for disclosing beneficial ownership of companies is a model of contemporary modern European legislation on the subject. This affords access to this information as follows (UBO is the Universal Beneficial Ownership registry and FIO is the Fiscal Intelligence Agency, an anti-money laundering agency): The public can only access the publicly accessible UBO-information with a valid registration and in exchange for a fixed fee. The identity of those persons that access the UBO-register will be registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce and UBOs may inquire as to how often their information has been consulted. The Chamber of Commerce may register the Citizen Service Number (Burgerservicenummer) of persons who access the register. The FIU and other competent authorities will, upon request, have access to that information. The FIU and other competent authorities may perform a search in the UBO-register based on the name of an individual, thus listing all connections of that individual, while the public will only be able to search the UBO-register for the UBO(s) of a specific entity (and not for the name of an individual). Even though this limitation to search options was presented as a measure to protect the privacy of UBOs, it is generally expected that commercial platforms that register company information will enable searches based on the name of individuals. The FIU and competent authorities have access to both the publicly and not publicly accessible UBO-information. In the Netherlands, the following institutions are, amongst others, qualified as competent authorities with unlimited access to the UBO-information: the Dutch Central Bank; the Authority for the Financial Markets; the Financial Supervision Office; the Dutch Gaming Authority; the Tax &amp; Customs Authorities; the National Police; the Public Prosecutor’s Office; the Dutch intelligence agencies; and the Tax Intelligence Agency. As this example illustrates, taxing authorities are given express statutory authority to gather information pertinent to tax collection. The Dutch situation, prior to the recent reform, collected essentially similar information, but at a decentralized basis in the offices of the notary handling the incorporation of the entity in question, with similar parties having access to the information. The E.U.'s General Data Protection Regulation generally, affirmatively extends to the provision of a good or service to an E.U. person subject to the regulation, something that would not include tax collection. See Article 3(2). Also, mutual assistance treaty obligations between E.U. countries to share information, which would include many tax treaties between E.U. countries, and criminal investigations (which would include criminal tax fraud cases) are expressly exempted from its scope.
The corporate veil can be pierced if the millionaire failed to sink in sufficient assets for the business to meet reasonably expected liabilities. In particular, the millionaire should have funded the LLC sufficient to hire qualified people and secure business liability insurance. Further, anytime a corporate structure is set up specifically to be a liability shield and not with other reasonable reasons, it will generally be vacated by the courts. See Asset Protection by Atkisson &amp; Riser, a must-read in this field. I know you are trying to create a &quot;straw man&quot; example for simplicity, but unfortunately the character and obvious purpose of the LLC does have a bearing on its survivability. Hardly anyone creates an LLC for a lemonade stand, which begs the question of &quot;why do it&quot;. It may be a defense against discrimination if the job listing was so particularly specific that the millionaire's child or ward was the only possible candidate, and then it could be defended as an educational exercise to show the ward how businesses are set up. Rather than an attempt to discriminate in any disallowed way.
You were on a performance improvement plan, those often require special requirements of the employee. I'm sorry your mother died, but a year seems like a very long time to take, and your company was very kind to give you that long. I am not a lawyer but I sincerely doubt there is anything actionable here.
When you buy a company you acquire all its assets and liabilities If the vendor wishes to retain some assets they need to buy them from the company; before, at the time of, or after the sale. The value of a company is its assets less its liabilities plus the present value of its future cash flows all adjusted for risk. If the company owns a fleet of motor vehicles then their market value is part of the assets (and any finance on them is part of the liabilities). If the managing director wants to keep their company car then they need to have it transferred to them and it won’t factor into the valuation That said, its usually only public companies (or large private companies on the verge of going public) that are bought. Because private companies have variable levels of management skill, there could be contingent liabilities no one knows about and a new owner is unlikely to want to take these on. Private companies usually sell their assets (including the “business”) to insulate the new owner.
The company continues to own all its assets australia The appointment of a liquidator to does not change what the company owns - it just changes who is in control (the liquidator rather than the directors) and the purpose for which it is being run (realisation of assets for the benefit of creditors rather than as a going concern for the benefit of shareholders). The laptop still belongs to the company. The liquidator's job is to sell all commercially realisable assets and distribute the proceeds to the creditors. When they have done that (which can take years), they get a release from the court, and the company is deregistered 3 months later. Any assets of a deregistered company belong to the shareholders. A 3-year-old laptop is not a commercially realisable asset, so it's not something a liquidator would be interested in. You could tell the liquidator you have it, and they are welcome to collect it at any reasonable time. They will probably say, &quot;keep it.&quot;
Yes Companies can own companies - that’s what subsidiaries are. On a practical level, you know this is true because you actually have an example. Companies House would not have allowed its registration (barring error) if it was illegal. Why can’t it open a bank account? Banks (or any other business) can choose who they will and won’t do business with. Unless it’s discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, it’s not illegal. Since juridical persons don’t have protected characteristics (apart from nationality) it’s virtually impossible to illegally discriminate against them.
You need written permission from the second employer That’s a condition that the second employer (but not the first) has imposed on you. It’s not a complicated interpretation.