Originally posted by Nick Johnson:
My Attorney/CPA has never failed me and he's good about not pushing 1 over the other and at the time I felt that was the better solution considering my business model was to wholesale out my short sales that would create periodic large sums deposited and I'm able to reduce the amount of income tax I have to pay with the s-corp election, I think it's a 1/3-1/3-1/3........1/3 = pay - income taxes = smaller check but less taxes paid.....1/3 = paid dividend and 1/3 is eaten up by expenses.......Now I can be a little off on those, there just from memory. If you'd like I can get more detailed answers if you give me till tomorrow to find out
S-Corps do offer tax savings when it comes to payroll, not income tax. An S-Corp is a special election for small businesses designed to save them some dough when it comes to pulling their money out of the company. Being an S-corp also increases the chance of an IRS audit (something your accountant should have told you) because of the additional tax savings it offers. It also has strict rules because it is truly designed for small businesses.
An S-Corp assumes you are a small business owner and are going to be taking a salary from your business. The salary has to be reasonable or you may be flagged by the IRS. Don't pull a salary of $2 or something obvious. But every distribution you take outside of that salary (which for some small business owners is every last cent) you completely avoid the payroll taxes of FICA/medicaid.
It still acts as a pass-through entity like an LLC taxed as a partnership but affords you the payroll tax advantage. If you intend to leave a lot of your money in the business and not pull it all out, than an S-Corp election isn't necessary.
The legal protection that everyone talks about entirely depends on rulings in your state. Some states, especially those with heavy democrat leadership, routinely favor the consumer over the business in court proceedings. California is probably known for this more than any other state. But some states supposedly offer bullet proof protection (although this has changed over the years). I believe Nevada and Utah were both good at one time, but I am unsure as to their status now.
My understanding about a traditional Corporation as a real-estate investment tool is not a good idea because you lose all of the pass-through entity tax savings. They are also more difficult to maintain and no legal entity (LLC, SCORP, CORPORATION) offers legal protection if you don't maintain them properly. A corporation requires meetings of the shareholders, notes of all meetings, etc. If you can produce these things in the event of a lawsuit, great, otherwise stick with something simpler like an LLC or an SCORP. They exist because of their simplicity
Also, another strategy to increase your asset protection would be to form a holding company for your real estate properties. Putting another barrier in between you and the lawsuit. Another strategy is to form separate LLCs for separate properties. That way you don't have all of your eggs in one basket.