Discussion in 'Arizona Cardinals' started by BritCard, Feb 28, 2021.
lots of family owned businesses are "S corporations".
the "S " stands for Shareholder.
In this case, whatever the corporate structure, it is Mike and four siblings. Three have no direct involvement with managing the family enterprise.
No it doesn't. It stands for Small Business Corporations which happen to fall under Subchapter S in the Internal Revenue Code.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml;jsessionid=E51881A585BE3FBDA7CC0C652856FAA3?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-chapter1&saved=L3ByZWxpbUB0aXRsZTI2L3N1YnRpdGxlQS9jaGFwdGVyMS9zdWJjaGFwdGVyUw==|Z3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUyNi1jaGFwdGVyMS1zdWJjaGFwdGVyUw==|||0|false|prelim&edition=prelim shows the Tax Sections
and here's S:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitleA/chapter1/subchapterS&edition=prelim#:~:text=Subchapter S—Tax Treatment of S Corporations and Their Shareholders&text=Tax treatment of shareholders.,Special rules.
apologies i stand corrected. However the income/loses debits/credits all go through THE SHAREHOLDERS. The original discussion was that many family businesses are shareholder ran. Michael B's shareholders are his siblings and anyone else who i probably have no business knowing.
Agreed. Just wanted to point out the S because I'm a pain in the ass that way.
This made me laugh out loud (sorry, it’s the tax attorney in me). What did you think the “C” stood for in C corporations?
Actually in the legal field they’re referred to as “subchapter S corporations.” So it’s technically the subchapter that’s being referenced (even if the S was based in it being a small business as originally dictated by the limited number and scope of shareholders, so I guess you could say S’s ALL AROUND!)
(don’t shoot the tax attorney)
Are you going to mention being a tax attorney in every one of your posts today too? <giggle>
Tax attorney, JD LLM
Yeah, but the shareholders don't care about being competitive nearly as much as they care about the dividend being handed out at the end of the year/keeping plenty of graft-y jobs in the family.
Man, I just knew there was something wrong about you. Now I know.
I got yer master of laws right here...........
Exactly. There seems to be a fallacy created by fans that owners care about winning. Some do, some more than others. I'm sure the majority of that is for their own ego and competitiveness with other owners.
But what they mostly care about is getting paid hundreds of millions in guaranteed profits every year for doing very little whether they win or lose.
Let's say your cousin Bidwill with your 10% share. Are you really getting yourself needlessly stressed over not challenging for super bowls or are you laying on your bed of money wondering where to take your 30 year younger trophy wife on the yacht next week?
It's the ultimate toy. Look at Mike. Through no merit or talent of his own he gets to play "football manager" every year with a guarantee he can't lose. He will never lose money, he will never get "relegated". In fact he can only ever make a fortune no matter how bad he is.
The only possible ever downside are PO'd fans. But tickets and concessions make up very little of the annual profit and when you have a fan base conditioned to accept losing (as we are) then they turn up anyway.
How many "jobs" can you have no skills or aptitude for and still make hundreds of millions guaranteed?
I think youre assuming too much here. Business is business, of course those vested in an entity care about money, never understood why that triggers so many people.
But to assume that "cousin bidwill" has a young trophy wife and swims with money on a yacht is a little presumptuous. I do think you have a valid point but it gets diluted amongst all the veiled vitriol.
Separate names with a comma.