(no title)
dbuxton | 1 month ago
Now, that may not work in all jurisdictions for reasons of local taxation etc (and you'll have to work out payroll tax, benefits etc) but that's almost never anything to do with the legal entity type!
dbuxton | 1 month ago
Now, that may not work in all jurisdictions for reasons of local taxation etc (and you'll have to work out payroll tax, benefits etc) but that's almost never anything to do with the legal entity type!
embedding-shape|1 month ago
Man, at least read the title of the submission, even if you're not gonna be bothered reading the contents. This is clearly about EU, incorporating in either of those two places would defeat the entire purpose :)
> the legal entity you choose is possibly the least consequential
I think this is a bit of the goal with EU-INC, so people don't have to think about it as much. Right now, if you're multinational, you really have to be careful what country you use as your base. Hopefully, with something like this, in the future, you can also include a "EU-INC" in there, and advice people to just go with the simplest way. I think that's the dream at least.
veltas|1 month ago
UK is in Europe.
tcldr|1 month ago
The amount of founders who choose to domicile their company in Estonia because the ticket rates and ease look attractive and who don't understand that this will still need to be administered in their local market as a CFC (controlled foreign corporation) would probably say differently.
> Just choose a jurisdiction where investors understand how the legals work (Delaware C-corp, UK Ltd is OK too) and there's a finite administrative burden and/or commoditized tooling in place to help you handle it.
That's exactly what EU-INC is trying to provide/solve afaict.
arka2147483647|1 month ago
Neither of which is in EU, which is exactly the point. Should be an EU one which is usable...
veltas|1 month ago
pjc50|1 month ago
mejutoco|1 month ago