Posts by analogpanther41

Carol Price4 said:I use a Fidelity certificate on a USB stick from my bank for both this and my online banking. I paid $73 and it's good for 2 years, 🤷

Been using my ID from the DMV for years and didn't even have to pay a dime for the IRS website

casualwolf22 said:Hey, I could really use some advice here... if anyone knows the deal.
So, here’s my situation: I’ve got a steady full-time gig right now where they pay me on time and handle all my taxes and benefits, which is great. But, I’ve got this itch to pick up some freelance work on the side whenever I have the downtime.
Since the work involves photography, I can't just open a simple sole proprietorship because those are strictly regulated—you basically need specific trade certifications or licenses that I don't have. So, I’ve been looking into starting an LLC.

From what I’ve gathered, you can technically set up an LLC without having employees, but there's this catch where the business isn't supposed to show a profit unless there's actually someone on the payroll.
I also thought about asking my current boss to scale back my hours from a full 8-hour shift to maybe 4 or 6 hours, so I could use the leftover time to run my own thing, but honestly, I'm not really vibing with that option.

Then, this idea popped into my head: What if I set up an LLC in my own name but don't officially hire myself as an employee? Instead, every time a job comes up, I’d just sign an independent contractor agreement with my own company. Basically, I’d be signing as the owner of the LLC on one side, and as the service provider on the other. Is that even possible? And more importantly, is it actually legal?

I know it sounds kind of "stupid" since the tax hit on contractor agreements is pretty brutal, but I'm low-key terrified that I won't find any other way to do this legally.

The only other alternative I can think of is finding some country in the European Union that doesn't have these weird rules about companies needing employees to turn a profit, then opening a business over there while still working here in America. 😕

As far as I know, a company can pull in millions without having a single employee. That's what the lawyer told us when we were setting things up.

Michael Diaz4 said:You don't need the ER right this second, but once things settle down enough to actually leave the house, go see a doctor in a couple days. Look, bleeding usually means hemorrhoids, but that same symptom can pop up with much scarier stuff—though honestly, it's probably just nothing serious. Still, go see a solid doctor just to clear your conscience and stop things from getting worse. Don't be embarrassed, it's not a big deal. Trust me, I'm basically an expert since I dealt with hemorrhoid hell for years before finally kicking the habit for good. It was nasty because I waited too long, so don't be like me. Go while it doesn't hurt like crazy...

Thanks Michael, but my whole family is freaking out telling me to sprint to the ER, and I'm just not feeling it. Does anyone know a decent proctologist in New York City? Private or hospital, whatever works. So far, I found some leads on Kocman and Ivanovic at KB Merkur. I called Dr. Solomon and he told me to swing by next Thursday for a quick colonoscopy—I mean, if it were life-threatening, wouldn't he have told me to get there right now? Or maybe he just wasn't really listening to me on the phone? He mentioned it could be bleeding from a polyp and suggested checking the first 60 cm of the colon (or last 60 cm, depending on how you look at it). But man, the second I hear "colonoscopy," I just freeze up thinking about how much I screamed during my only one. I'd rather see a proctologist first, and if they say it's just hemorrhoids, then we'll deal with the rest. Is it risky to head out on a 10-day beach trip like this? Nothing's gonna happen, right? And even if it *is* hemorrhoids, how is a checkup gonna stop the bleeding instantly? Michael, any tips on how to stop the bleeding? I'm taking Donat and my stools are soft, but I don't know what else to do.

Hey guys... looks like everyone’s dealing with different levels of this crap. I finally jumped on this thread on June 18th even though I've had hemorrhoids forever. Usually, they only bleed when things get tough during a bowel movement, but for the last three days, blood has been leaking out whenever I go to the bathroom. I guess once everything stretches out on the toilet seat and gravity kicks in, it just pours out. Hard to say how much we're talking—maybe 1ml, maybe 5ml? It’s impossible to tell when it hits the bowl and spreads. Just to be clear, nothing happens while I'm going about my day, sitting, working, etc. It only happens when I'm on the toilet. I called the ER tonight and they told me to get down there immediately. Honestly, I don't want to go, so I'm asking you: is this a "run to the hospital right now" situation or can it wait a couple of days? I'm also on my period right now so the last thing I want is a trip to the hospital... Plus, there's zero pain, no burning, no itching... just this damn bleeding. You think it's just the hemorrhoids or could it be something worse? Like my stomach? But if it were my stomach, wouldn't the blood be dark? Do hemorrhoids need an emergency room visit when they bleed like this, or does it just settle down? Do I seriously need to head to the ER right this second? Please let me know how long yours have been bleeding and how much? Can it really bleed that much? Thanks, you guys are the only ones who can calm me down here.

Michael Diaz4 said:Just go see a doctor... Honestly, I'm like 100% sure it's hemorrhoids, but you need a real doc to confirm the details...

Anyone got a doctor recommendation? I'm based in Washington, D.C.

Melissa Sanchez8 said:Sounds like a blood clot to me based on what you're saying.

Oh, totally possible. Does everyone's blood look light to you guys? Mine's light sometimes and dark other times.

It looked just like chopped up chicken liver... I wasn't even having a massive bathroom session, just a quick one, and suddenly there was blood all over the toilet paper and it just came out... gross

Hey, I've been dealing with hemorrhoids forever—you know, the whole bright red blood on the toilet paper deal... but today was different. Something actually popped out, like a little piece of tissue, maybe 1.5 cm, all bloody and looking like raw liver. Anyone else dealt with this? What did your doctors tell you?

What’s the move if I messed up my VAT return on the IRS portal? I swapped two lines... everything looks fine logically so the system accepted it, but the numbers are wrong... Can I just file a correction, or do I have to call them to void this mess? On line V., the screen shows one thing, but once I print it out, it says something totally different—that's how I caught the mistake. Basically, under "amount paid to date," I put $0.00 when I should've copied the amount from section IV. Now it looks like I owe the entire tax amount again. Is this gonna be an issue? They aren't actually gonna charge me twice since I already settled everything back in July, right?

Ethan Rogers7 said:Hey there, fellow tax enthusiasts, I’ve got a bit of a situation on my hands and could really use some wisdom! 🙂

So, I finally got my LLC officially up and running, and earlier today, while I was filling out all the paperwork for my sales tax registration with the IRS, I went ahead and entered the date the business actually became active—which was November 7, 2011, the day it was registered with the Secretary of State. I wasn't really thinking twice about it at the time, just moving through the forms, you know? But then it hit me...
I also signed an employment contract with myself (yeah, the joys of being the boss!), and that one is set to start on November 14, 2011.

Since I’m currently listed as unemployed with the state unemployment office, I’m scratching my head over the math here... do I need to calculate self-employment taxes on a "draw" or owner's salary for that little gap between November 7th and the 13th, and then switch over to paying standard payroll taxes based on my actual gross salary from the 14th onwards once the contract kicks in? Just trying to figure out how to handle this tiny little window of time without making a mess of things.

Thanks so much for any help!

Don't sweat it. I personally know two CEOs who didn't pay themselves a dime for three years because they thought an LLC didn't require employees. They didn't realize they were supposed to be covered under some other payroll or paying taxes on some other basis. Nothing ever happened to them. So yeah, don't worry.

Kimberly Harris6 said:Sure, you can input whatever data you want, but don't think for a second that the court isn't going to demand a formal valuation from you.
Considering the sheer cost of hiring a court-appointed expert, does it actually make sense to go down this road if you're working with a small amount of seed capital? I can't help but wonder if the math even adds up. Plus, from what I understand, at least half of that amount has to be paid upfront in cash. Is it really worth chasing the legal route when the fees might eat up your entire budget before you even get started?

From the ZTD.

Article 390.
The minimum wage can't be anything less than... $67The base share must be expressed as an integer that is a multiple of one hundred. Furthermore, the sum of all base shares has to equal the company's total capital. Is it really that complicated? It should be straightforward.
Before any founder can officially register their company with the Secretary of State, they’re required to shell out at least twenty-five percent of their initial cash contribution. Of course, there's a catch: the total sum of all those cash injections combined can't fall below a certain minimum threshold. Why does the bureaucracy always need these extra hoops to jump through? $3333.
Unless we’re looking at those specific exceptions mentioned in section 7 of this article, at least half of the initial capital has to be paid up in cash. Is that really clear enough?
When it comes to setting up a company, you can satisfy the initial capital requirement by contributing assets and specific rights. However, there’s a catch: everything you intend to put into the business must be fully transferred before the company is officially registered with the Secretary of State. What happens if the value of those assets falls short at the moment of filing? If the market value of what you've contributed is less than the stated capital amount required by your articles of incorporation, you can't just leave it at that. You have to bridge that gap by paying the difference in cash. It’s a simple enough rule, but it ensures the company actually has the capital it claims to possess from day one. Why would anyone want to start a business with "phantom" equity?
When it comes to investing assets and rights, we have to follow the specific rules laid out in Sections 176, 179 (specifically that second sentence of subsection 5), 181 through 185, Section 187 (subsection 2, points 2 and 3, plus subsection 4), and finally Sections 191 through 193 of this Act. Why can't these legal frameworks ever be simplified? It seems like every single investment procedure requires navigating a dense thicket of cross-referenced statutes just to stay compliant.
The core capital needs to be paid up in full so the company actually has the freedom to use those funds as intended.
Cash contributions are deposited directly into the company's account at a financial institution here in the States. Once the business is officially recorded in the court registry, that institution issues a formal confirmation stating that the company has full, unrestricted access to those funds.
When you’re setting up a corporation specifically to take over an existing business—one that’s already been running for at least two years—whether you're doing it solo or alongside your immediate family, there's a specific rule regarding capital. If you're folding that business into the new entity, or if this is part of a bankruptcy reorganization plan, the requirement to have at least half of the capital paid up in cash only applies to the portion of the capital that isn't being covered by the transferred assets. This same logic holds up even if you're merging multiple businesses into one single corporation at once. Does that make sense? It seems like a straightforward way to handle the math when you aren't just injecting raw cash, but rather moving existing value from one pocket to another.
The distinction between establishing rights and actually taking possession of them. One is about setting the legal groundwork; the other is about the physical reality of control. Why does the law make such a massive distinction here? Is it enough to simply have a claim on paper, or does the right only truly exist once you've physically seized it?
Article 176.
If shareholders decide to pay their stakes using assets or rights instead of cold, hard cash—or if the company is taking over existing or future property and rights—the bylaws have to be crystal clear. You can't just leave it vague. The articles of incorporation must explicitly define exactly what asset or right is being contributed, who is actually handing it over to the company, and the total nominal value of the shares being issued in exchange. Why would anyone want to leave those details to chance? It’s basic accountability.
When we talk about investments, we have to be clear about the specifics: whether we’re looking at individual nominal amounts or simply the number of shares without a set face value required for an investment. It also applies to any compensation paid to acquire assets or rights. If a company is taking over an asset or a specific legal right that requires payment, that compensation must be factored into the shareholder's contribution. It is essentially treated as an investment in kind—an infusion of property or rights rather than just cash. Is it really that complicated? It’s straightforward math once you define what exactly is being brought to the table.
You can only invest in or acquire assets or property rights that actually hold measurable economic value. It’s pretty straightforward: you can't package up a mere obligation to provide services and try to pass it off as an investable asset or a transferable right. Why would anyone attempt to value a promise of service as if it were tangible property? If it doesn't have a clear, quantifiable market value, it doesn't qualify.
(3) For a corporation, investment agreements and any transfers of assets, rights, or legal actions used to execute them won't be binding on the company unless they are explicitly laid out in the corporate bylaws as required by paragraph 1 of this section. If the company is officially registered with the Secretary of State, any contracts or actions that fail to meet these standards
will not invalidate the bylaws themselves. However, if an agreement to invest assets or rights turns out to be invalid, the shareholder is legally obligated to pay the cash equivalent of the share's value.
(4) Once a company is registered with the state, you can't simply fix an invalid contract or legal action from paragraph 3 by amending the corporate bylaws.
(5) Any changes made to the bylaws regarding the investment or transfer of assets and rights must follow the procedures outlined in Section 175, paragraph 4 of this Act.

To put it simply, you can use both cash and assets in a 50-50 split, provided the total value of those assets doesn't exceed 50% of the authorized capital stock. You’ll need to get a formal appraisal of everything being contributed—your best bet is to hire a reputable accounting firm to handle that for you.

Thanks, but an audit isn't cheap $667.

Hey guys, quick question—when I’m setting up my LLC today, can I just list assets for the startup capital, or does it actually have to be cash in the bank? Thanks in advance