Play all the samantics you want, but at the end of the day, the Federal government collects taxes off the profit of an s-corp.
But that does not equate to S-corps paying Federal Corporate Income tax. You apparently do not understand the difference between you and a legally separate entity. By your reasoning, municipal bonds are taxed because eventually the estate in which their accumulated interest is taxed.
LOL...I never said that I didn't pay payroll taxes out of my c-corps that have no employees.
You just argued that C-Corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes.
Note:
I, personally, choose a c-corp, because as an s-corp, I would have to keep track of a ****load of payroll taxes.
Except that S-Corps and C-Corps and frankly any entity that employs people has to deal with payroll taxes. Choosing a S-Corp over a C-Corp does not change the fact that if you employ people, you have payroll taxes. Your argument is entirely faulty. And it suggests you are making **** up.
You know what the books say, but you don't understand how it applies in the real world.
I'm not the one who argued that C-corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes. You did. And you say I don't know how it applies in the real world. You can keep throwing out that line of reasoning, but demonstrating time and time again you don't understand the concepts and me explaining them to you doesn't suggest your insults are of any worth.
There's less accounting, because I don't have to figure payroll taxes every time money is taken out of the company's account.
I can borrow money for a c-corp and don't have to figure payroll taxes, eveytime I write a check. Hence, less accounting.
Actually there's likely
more that way. By engaging in related party loans, you have significantly more accounting to do as your reporting goes up as well as various other eliminations and imputed interest that has to be reported. Furthermore, you still have the same kind of self employment issues with S if you are a owner active partner.
Try again apdst. And it's easy to do self employment compared to related party loans.
Because, as you probably know, all the money that is taken out of an s-corp has to be accounted as payroll, no matter where it goes.
Who ever told you that told you a boldface lie. You clearly do not understand the difference between the taxation differences between general partners and limited. Distributions to limited partners
do not get accounted for as payroll. Therefore, not all of money distributed from an S-Corp is accounted for as payroll. You are wrong as usual. When will you learn to stop talking about this subject?
Hence, again, what the hell are you talking about?
You're catching on. It took a while, but I think you're finally there.
See above. Your ignorance is almost as appalling as your arrogance. And it's amusing you say that after it took
pages for you to realize that structure defines function and by getting the freely available structure registration info, one can determine a entity's tax function.
That's right. S-corps do pay federal taxes. They're federal taxes are payed through the owner(s's) individual filing.
*sigh* S-Corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax. I have stated this from the beginning. They do pay, if meeting the criteria, special S-Corp corporate taxes. S-Corp income flows through to individuals who pay it on their taxes. Therefore, as
an a separate legal entity, S-corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax.
Seriously, you realllllly need to stop talking about this subject.