In the United States the process of incorporating a company is needlessly difficult. Entrepreneurs get to make a bewildering choice between a sole proprietorship, a general partnership, a limited partnership, a limited liability partnership, a c-corporation, an s-corporation, a limited liability company, and a host of other choices.

Each type of legal entity has different attributes and requires a multitude of different forms and procedures. Whether you can choose one of these entities is based on some strange and unusual criteria you must meet, which often can be cleverly circumvented by the proper paperwork (for example, although an s-corporation is limited to 100 shareholders, those shareholders can be companies or trusts themselves, allowing you to indirectly expand the number of owners).  Each of these entities gets treated differently by the taxation system on the federal, state and local level, and on an income and payroll level.

Google returns 39 million documents for the word “incorporate” but do any of them cleanly and simply explain how to go about it? The process is so complex and the source material for how these rules get decided is so dispersed across different federal and state agencies that the advice given is often wrong.  The advice lots of lawyers give can be wrong too.  I know, I’m a former large firm lawyer, and I’ve seen people misunderstand the consequences of certain choices.

Incorporation is so complex that various different services of highly different levels of quality have sprung up to tackle it. These vary from $50 incorporation services that often offer poor explanations of the consequences of different incorporation choices to $3000 services at large law firms.  The complexity of the incorporation system is really only to the advantage of the advisors.

Hernando de Soto has explained that for a country to unleash its capital and generate wealth it needs to remove the barriers to entrepreneurs seeking to pool and use capital (see my review of his book).  Muhammad Yunus has explained and demonstrated (wikipedia) even those in great poverty are entrepreneurs, if only they are given access to the opportunity.  It is past time for the incorporation process to be reformed.  Even an incorporation process that costs $100 bars the entry of many people who would like to start their own company (and in California incorporation carries government and tax fees of at least $900, not including advisor’s fees).

How should reform be implemented? Some principles to ponder:

  • There should be a single federal website (company.gov) you go to to start a company in any of the 50 states or on a federal level.
  • The website should give you a checklist of attributes you would like your company to have.  Check whether it is a nonprofit, for profit, a social business, limited liability, pass through taxation, etc.
  • Each attribute you choose should clearly list the prerequisites and effects (pros and cons) of choosing it.
  • Regardless of what attributes you choose for your company, there should be a single form you fill out to file taxes for the company.  This form should be the same across all companies.
  • Servicing a lawsuit against a company should be as simple as uploading a claim on the federal website.  Companies, the press and the public would easily and freely be able to find out about new claims.
  • States should have the freedom to add new attributes to the federal website for companies incorporated in their state, so that innovation in corporate forms is not curtailed.
  • Incorporating on the federal website should automatically create your unique taxpayer identification number, and potentially provide further plain language information on how to start and fund your business.

Complexity in the incorporation processes is similar to complexity in the taxation process, creating unfair advantages for those who can afford the best advice. Refining the incorporation process could be a stepping stone to tackling reform of the tax system.

Wherever you fall in the political spectrum, it is clear that one policy (nearly) everyone can agree on is that the public should have better knowledge about the workings of its government. Without knowing how things work, it is hard to drive accountability. Opening matters to public scrutiny can often create the best behavior. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

One of the often overlooked advantages of the United States government is that there is relatively high transparency for its actions. The Freedom of Information Act, championed by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been a significant aid in making the government of the people transparent to the people, but still things could be done better. I have often thought it is ironic that it is easier to search a billion documents across the world then the documents of the United States government.

Seeking to rectify that issue, and bring far greater transparency to the workings of the United States government, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced a bill that would that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance. In short, make finding out information on federal spending as simple to use as a search on the Internet.

Such a fantastically good idea was unanimously passed in a voice vote last month by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and was put on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed Aug. 4, when someone put a secret hold on the measure. Under Senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.

In August 2006, a bipartisan group of bloggers initiated a campaign that contacted the offices of all of the Senators who could have placed the hold and asked them to make a public statement affirming that they did not place the hold. With five holdouts remaining, the office of Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) eventually confirmed he put the secret hold on the bill.

What committee does Ted Stevens oversee in the Senate? He’s the head of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. You know, the Senator who heads the committee that sets policy for the Internet.

Ted Stevens has been subjected to alot of criticism for the Bridge to Nowhere (which arguably helps Alaska significantly), and alot of ridicule for calling the Internet a series of tubes (which it arguably is), but to my mind those issues are of relatively little importance compared to his placing a hold on a bill that would create a more transparent government. If he has a reasonable objection to such a bill, he should have placed a hold on the bill openly, and set forth his critique. A secret hold on a matter such as this is unworthy of the office he holds, and I hope he soon recants.

Tagged with: