Starting an LLC: Where to begin?

He could always just start his own company. The catch is he'll need proof of residency here in the States first. Plus, once the business is up and running, he’s going to need a work permit.
Whether he’s acting as an employee or the founder, he still needs that permit because the law requires him to be officially employed.

Is there any way for an American company to set up a branch in Mexico?
Does anyone have any insight on this? I need answers fast. 🙏

Greetings! I was wondering if there are any specific educational requirements when setting up an LLC. Specifically, does the person filing the paperwork need to hold a certain degree or certification for the actual work the company will be doing?

For instance: what if I haven't graduated from a major music conservatory, but I’ve completed a guitar course? Or, if I don't have a formal ballet degree, but I want to teach recreational dance classes...

I know that for a sole proprietorship, you usually have to submit a bunch of credentials, but everyone keeps telling me that for an LLC, those rules don't apply. I just wanted to see if anyone here has experience with this so I can be fully prepared before I start the incorporation process...

Thanks in advance!

You don't actually need a specific degree to run an LLC like you would for a sole proprietorship. Of course, there are exceptions—for instance, a pharmacy obviously needs to have a licensed pharmacist on staff and so on.

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

analogpanther41 said: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

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.

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 there! I’ve got a bit of a question for you all. I'm looking into setting up an LLC, but I was wondering if there's a way to set it up so that I can pull out the initial capital ($6667) later on without it being a total headache? It’s not like I want to just grab the cash immediately—maybe in a year or so—but I really want to avoid having to jump through a million hoops to justify it. I just want it to be clear that it's my money, you know? Since I'll be the sole owner and the future CEO, is that even doable? Like, what should I be doing during the incorporation process to make sure I don't overextend myself or get stuck in some legal mess later...

I’ve recently launched a small IT services and computer repair outfit, which has been operating quite modestly out of my own apartment thus far... though, given how quickly things have picked up, we’ve reached a point where we desperately need a dedicated commercial space to call home. We've actually identified a potential location, but we’re currently stuck in the bureaucratic limbo of waiting for all the building permits and zoning clearances to clear, which, as anyone who has dealt with local government knows, can be an agonizingly slow process...

I was wondering if anyone here might have some insight into whether it’s legally permissible to begin operations in a new space before those final permits are officially in hand, especially considering that our specific line of business doesn't strictly require a specialized occupancy permit under current regulations...

Ethan Sanders said:Yeah, I get what you mean, but I was thinking about just pulling it out without making a whole thing of it—like, maybe claiming I lent it to the company when we first started? Is there some kind of loophole there?

"LLCs - Concepts and Formation
...
Repayment of initial capital. Distribution of profits

Members of an LLC cannot demand that the company return their initial capital contributions if doing so would result in a reduction of the company's total capital. As long as the LLC remains in operation, members have the right to request a distribution of annual profits, provided that such distributions aren't specifically prohibited by the operating agreement or a vote from the members.
Unless the operating agreement states otherwise, these profits are distributed to members in proportion to their initial capital contributions. "

Kimberly Harris6 said:"LLCs - Concepts and Formation
...
Repayment of initial capital. Distribution of profits

Members of an LLC cannot demand that the company return their initial capital contributions if doing so would result in a reduction of the company's total capital. As long as the LLC remains in operation, members have the right to request a distribution of annual profits, provided that such distributions aren't specifically prohibited by the operating agreement or a vote from the members.
Unless the operating agreement states otherwise, these profits are distributed to members in proportion to their initial capital contributions. "

aha okay, I think I get it now. Thanks!

I've got another question for you guys. I was looking into notary fees around the Annapolis and Savannah areas, and they seem to be running anywhere from $3,000 to $1267. Does anyone know what the deal is like in Washington, D.C.? I'm wondering if there’s anything a bit more budget-friendly out there, and if anyone has a specific notary they'd recommend... because, honestly, if I can find someone even $167 cheaper, I might just make the drive down to Washington, D.C.

Ethan Sanders said:I've got another question for you guys. I was looking into notary fees around the Annapolis and Savannah areas, and they seem to be running anywhere from $3,000 to $1267. Does anyone know what the deal is like in Washington, D.C.? I'm wondering if there’s anything a bit more budget-friendly out there, and if anyone has a specific notary they'd recommend... because, honestly, if I can find someone even $167 cheaper, I might just make the drive down to Washington, D.C.

It's pretty much the same story in Washington, D.C.

Can I get a quick one?

Company XX LLC is registered under the owner's address, but they don't actually run any operations there. They just use the office space belonging to YY Corp, which even has its own signage on the door. Does XX LLC legally need a lease agreement for those business premises with YY Corp? It seems like the owner isn't even trying to account for rent. Where can I find more details on this? What specific regulations should I cite when explaining to the owner of XX LLC that a formal lease is mandatory?

Ethan Sanders said:I've got another question for you guys. I was looking into notary fees around the Annapolis and Savannah areas, and they seem to be running anywhere from $3,000 to $1267. Does anyone know what the deal is like in Washington, D.C.? I'm wondering if there’s anything a bit more budget-friendly out there, and if anyone has a specific notary they'd recommend... because, honestly, if I can find someone even $167 cheaper, I might just make the drive down to Washington, D.C.

Notary costs are absolutely outrageous—just like those federal register filings, court fees, and newspaper notices.
Slobodan Maddox, Popovich $1.00, what is all this even for?
In a country struggling with unemployment—where we're constantly told to turn job seekers into entrepreneurs—shouldn't the government just grant a registered business license to anyone willing to risk their own $6.75?
Helping people work legally is far more profitable in the long run than snatching away roughly $1.75 just to open a small business.☕

I’m planning to start a business in a different city rather than here in Washington, D.C., where I currently live and work.
Since it seems like the official online filing portals aren't fully functional right now—and getting any time off work is pretty much out of the question for me 🙄—can I just handle everything through a local notary here in Washington, D.C.? Could they simply mail the documents and the application to the court in the other city? Or is mail-in filing not an option, meaning I'd have to physically show up at the courthouse or hire a lawyer or notary out there to handle it on my behalf? 😳
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. 🙏

Donna Jones26 said:With an LLC, you aren't stuck with just one thing! You can have several different business activities, and you don't have to list them all right at the start. If things take off and you want to branch out later, no big deal... you just update your filings with the Secretary of State to add those extra activities to your existing LLC. Super easy!

Regarding that, I was told it might be smarter to list a wider range of activities from day one if I think I might want to pursue them later. Apparently, adding new business categories down the road can get pretty expensive. Is that actually true? 🤔
And regarding the initial setup, do I have to pay a separate fee for every single activity I list? I think I saw somewhere that it costs about $50 per activity? 🤔

rowdybadger3 said:That $3,100 was just for the stamp... I settled up today, so I'm giving you the firsthand scoop. Maybe some people are getting ripped off more than others, but that was my price. It probably depends on what kind of business you're running—I definitely threw a bunch of extra stuff into the mix.

rowdyhawk25 said:covered the notary fees$1017.

Could anyone provide the names of these notaries if they happen to be located in Chicago? 🙂 Send me a DM if this is where the issue lies. 🙂 I have to admit, I love these numbers. No matter how high the price tag, they really appeal to me. Someone mentioned a figure around... $1667 🙂

gentlescout30 said:I’m planning to start a business in a different city rather than here in Washington, D.C., where I currently live and work.
Since it seems like the official online filing portals aren't fully functional right now—and getting any time off work is pretty much out of the question for me 🙄—can I just handle everything through a local notary here in Washington, D.C.? Could they simply mail the documents and the application to the court in the other city? Or is mail-in filing not an option, meaning I'd have to physically show up at the courthouse or hire a lawyer or notary out there to handle it on my behalf? 😳
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. 🙏

As far as I'm aware, that online filing system is working fine... at least in NYC. I actually called them a few days ago to double-check something, and I haven't heard anything about it being down for any reason.

Quick question for the group. I'm looking into starting an LLC for a textile wholesale business—mostly small inventory stuff. Does anyone know what the minimum requirements are for office or warehouse space? For instance, could I realistically convert a 30 m2 garage into a functional commercial space?