I have been doing my own business accounting for a couple of decades. I am just now looking to add an accountant to do my taxes and advise me on accounting matters.The accountant disagrees with my belief that a persons personal assets are protected from an LLC. I thought that was the principle purpose of an LLC. But the accountant insists that the only way to protect personal assets is through an S Corporation.The accountant insists that an LLC is nothing but a sole proprietership.Is it true that an LLC does not provide the asset protection as does a corporation?What is the difference?
State/Country relating to question: California
The accountant is incorrect. For tax purposes, a single member LLC is a disregarded entity and therefore the same as a sole proprietorship, but for asset protection purposes, and LLC provides all of the same protections as an S corp.
The Limited Liability Company (LLC) has become a powerful tool for accomplishing many asset protection goals. The LLC is the most versatile and convenient strategy for owning rental property, insulating Dangerous Assets, operating a business, and achieving an excellent level of financial privacy.
The LLC is no longer a new and untested legal entity. It is now recognized in all fifty states with well-established case law and statutes. The adoption of the LLC format began in Wyoming and Florida in the 1970s with approval in most other states shortly after that. The purpose of the LLC legislation is to allow individuals to create a legal entity that avoids many of the tax and business problems inherent in the corporate and partnership structure. The intent of the law is to allow individuals to conduct their financial and business affairs in an efficient and convenient manner without the restrictions, formalities, and liabilities associated with those other entities.
More particularly, the LLC provides the protection from liability of a corporation without the formalities of corporate minutes, bylaws, directors, and shareholders. In contrast to corporate law, which allows shareholders and officers to be individually sued if the corporate formalities are not followed, the LLC law specifically bars a lawsuit against a member solely because of a failure to follow these formalities. That is an important distinction which you should understand. As we discussed, the principle shareholders and officers of a corporation are routinely named as defendants in a lawsuit against the company—forcing them to incur attorney’s fees to defend themselves and rendering the corporate shield meaningless from a practical standpoint.
A primary goal of the LLC legislation was to change this result by clearly stating that the members and managers of the LLC could not be named in a lawsuit against the company. The new law was drawn specifically to provide a vehicle that would protect the owners from liability associated with the business—what the corporation was intended for but no longer accomplished in the modern litigation-prone era.
A number of exceptions to this general rule of limited liability are contained in the LLC legislation and in subsequent case law. California Corporations Code Section 171011 (b) provides:
“A member of a limited liability company shall be subject to liability under the common law governing alter ego liability and shall also be personally liable under a judgment of a court or for any debt, obligation, or liability of the limited liability company, whether that liability or obligation arises in contract, tort, or otherwise, under the same or similar circumstances and to the same extent as a shareholder of a corporation may be personally liable for any debt, obligation, or liability of the corporation; except that the failure to hold meetings of members or managers or the failure to observe formalities pertaining to the calling or conduct of meetings shall not be considered a factor tending to establish that a member or the members have alter ego or personal liability for any debt, obligation, or liability of the limited liability company where the articles of organization or Operating Agreement do not expressly require the holding of meetings of members or manager.”
The statute itself allows for a piercing of the corporate veil under a theory of “alter ego” or under any other theory that could be used against a corporate entity (other than a failure to maintain corporate formalities).
16 years experience with a concentration in business, corporate and contracts law
Thank you for your complete reply.
I want to apologize for what may have been a misunderstanding on my part.
Some time ago, I asked a question on Just Answer, and when I replied to the Expert with a reply, I found that I was charged for another question. Looking back, the expert was able to close the question somehow.
When you invited me to chat, I saw that you entered and exited then re-entered the chat room, and I thought that was triggering the NEW Question Charge. My apologies, because doing some further research has allowed me to revise my opinion. Perhaps Just Answer has changed their programming, or perhaps it was just my mistake.
You deserve better than an OK rating, but I do not see how I can change that now. I do not appear to have an "edit" feature.
I will add a $5 bonus to say thank you. I know this is extremely small potatoes but it is all I can manage at the moment.
Thank you again for your complete answer and for accepting my apology.
Thanks for the explanation. You can keep asking me follow up questions regarding this topic without incurring another question charge. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).