Talk:Corporation sole

natural persons

Must these persons always be "natural persons"? PML.

Obviously, that's the (double) import of "sole" incorporation, a single person (at a time) and a single office . 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Someone speaking in the House of Commons in 1998 gave a lovely description of this concept:

The Lord Chancellor is working on that, but he is rather like Dr. Who, because now and again he goes into the Tardis and comes out reborn and reinvigorated. The latest one popped out on 1 May and has promised that there will be a better fast-track procedure in the small claims court.

[1] Marnanel 22:04, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tax exemption

I'm interested in how corporation sole in the Roman Catholic church relates to Sun Myung Moon tax case. Recalling the case from 20 years ago, I remember that the Unification Church defended Rev. Moon's holding of one million dollars in an interest-bearing account under his own name as being analogous to corporation sole; on that basis, they argued he should not have been held "criminally liable" for tax evasion (or "failing to report personal income") on the interest accrued during the 3 years he held the money before the Unification Church of America was incorporated as a 501c3. --Uncle Ed 14:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal Jargon Needs Explanation

As I am not a lawyer, I cannot understand the wording of the first paragraph: "This allows a corporation (usually a religious corporation) to pass vertically in time from one office holder to the next successor-in-office, giving the position legal continuity with each subsequent office holder having identical powers to his predecessor."

"...to pass vertically"? Vertical means an upright angle, or in economics: "involving all stages from production to sale." I see no definition in my dictionary which would explain the meaning of the word in this sentence.

Secondly, I do not understand what "legal continuity" could mean. Does it mean a continual legal process which goes uninterrupted? There are many possibilities.

Looking at this statement objectively, I would take it to mean that the corporation itself is handed over to a new owner (sole.) Is this correct? The paragraph badly needs be better explained by someone who understands the subject. Neurolanis (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)