Talk:Incorporation (business)

Is this article really supposed to say '15 poopy years'? Please shed some light on this situation Sakkath (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to generalise this to the process of incorporation for non-profits as well. This could also have its own page, but since the processes are very similar in both cases, it really should go here. --James 21:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am throwing in GmbH as an international entry, which I believe is how corporations are described in Germany. My hope is someone with a knowledge of german law will edit it to something interesting. This is added in response to the article being too US centric in the vote for deletion debate of Feb 2004. Kd4ttc 02:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What does it mean for a *city* to be "incorporated"? Jorge Stolfi 04:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, means that the city is formally organized. Goodralph 02:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article really needs more about municipal corporations (as well as non-profits and other types of corporations). I think for a city to incorporate is something more than simply becoming formally organized. The nature of municipal corporations has evolved in the U.S.--in the past some cities were given charters to become self-governing entities (this is roughly equivalent to the current undestanding of incorporation). However, early on, many states applied the same charter to all cities. These were sometimes known as "general-law" cities. The state legislature passed a standard charter that defined what a city could or could not do and how it was to organize itself and conduct its affairs. At some point (sorry I can't provide dates--but the movement became popular in the early 20th century--it may have had a connection with the progressive movement and the reform of corruption in local governments), states began granting "home rule" powers to cities (as well as to other forms of municipalities). This meant that the municipalities could write their own charter and determine (with the consent of the city residents of course) how to govern themselves and how to organize and administer local affairs. Unfortunately, I'm too unsure of the details in all this to edit the article--but it does need something in this regard. older≠wiser 01:05, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Globalize Proposal

I propose that this page needs to be globalized as it currently only deals with incorporation in the United States and does not examine other ways of forming a company under the same heading. It needs to be expanded, and possibly the US section put to a seperate page. Davidkinnen 23:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the Canadian law is also covered. I think that the Canadian incs are different from the American ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.80.78 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a more international point of view.--217.227.63.167 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal to internationalise this page as per Davidkinnen. I have added a section on incorporation in the United Kingdom with the detail in a separate article. My thoughts are that the page should cover the generic advantages and disadvantages of incorporation, with a short summary for each country on how to incorporate and run a company, along with a link to a detailed article on the process for each country. RonaldDuncan 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US section needs to be taken out to a new US incorporation article which should have info on the process for each of the states since there are huge differences between the tax structures and the ease of incorporation e.g. Delaware and Nevada easy vs New York which is a real pain. RonaldDuncan 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger

See discussion on the Corporation talk page. Smallbones 09:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages

The legal benefits of a corporation are listed, but how about some of the disadvantages to incorporation?

The disadvantages of incorporation are jurisdiction specific, and would need to be covered in individual jurisdictions. i.e. States in the US and Countries/regions in the rest of the world. e.g. The UK has 3 different sets of Company Law, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and two significant legislative systems England and Scotland. You could probably broad brush the disadvantages for the UK, but to be fully accurate you would need to go down to regional level.RonaldDuncan 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. vs Corp.

The difference between the above acronyms (and their full forms) should also be explained in the text. Typofier 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

German Translations

"Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung", meaning "limited liability business association".

Gesellschaft is usually translated as "company", not "business association", so I think the natural translation is "company with limited liability" or just "limited liability company", which is what it is called in English anyway.

"Aktiengesellschaft", meaning "stock market traded business association"

Why not just "public company" or "publicly-listed company"? Mikel Ward (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia is twice in the list

In the list about different types in different countries, it says: "Singapore uses Pte. Ltd., meaning "private limited" which is the equivalent of a U.S. incorporated entity. Malaysia uses Sdn. Bhd., meaning "private limited" which is the equivalent of a U.S. incorporated entity." AND "Malaysia uses Sdn. Bhd., meaning "private limited" which is the equivalent of a U.S. incorporated entity." This could be merged!