Fin/571 – Business StructuresBusiness StructuresMichelle BivinsFIN/571September 14, 2015James CiaramellaBusiness Structures In a world of business it is very important to know what type of structure is most beneficial when creating an organization. This paper will give information on the three types of Business Structures that are used in the business world. Included will also be the advantages and disadvantages of each of these structures. Other “important considerations are the size of the business, the manner in which income from the business is taxed, the legal liability of the owners, and the ability to raise cash to finance the business” (Parrino, Kidwell, & Bates, 2012).Thinking of the best way to allocate these ideas, structures are reviewed to determine which will be best. The three structures consist of Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, and Corporations. Sole Proprietorship is when a business has one owner. This owner oversees the operations of the business. Sometimes sole owners hire staff members to help run the business, however that all depends on the type of business. “A sole proprietorship offers several advantages. It is the simplest type of business to start, and it is the least regulated. In addition, sole proprietors keep all the profits from the business and do not have to share decision-making authority” (Parrino, Kidwell, & Bates, 2012). Another advantage is the profits made as a Sole Proprietor fit under a lower tax bracket, which means more money for the business owner.
The disadvantage is that the owner has to be responsible for all the bills and has unlimited liability which means the owner will be responsible for all debts. “Finally, it is difficult to transfer ownership of a sole proprietorship because there is no stock or other such interest to sell, the owner must sell the company’s assets, which can reduce the price that the owner receives for the business” (Parrino, Kidwell, & Bates, 2012). The next type of business is Partnership, this type of structure deals with two or more owners. These owners must agree to terms on how they are going to run the business, how much capital will be needed, and how will the business be managed. It is vital for partnerships to sit down and discuss, agree, and then draw up contracts on which partner is going to facilitate what part of the business. Then there is the dividing of profits which might depend on how much capital each partner invests into the company.
2. Legal and Qualitative Issues | What Is a “Pentel” (Kang, 2013)?
In Kang 2009, the Supreme Court held that a monopoly of a type that was not regulated by a bank or an insurance scheme was not a “porcelain monopoly” or a “public monopoly” because it included those who took an interest in it and were paid some kind of sum for participation. Kang also argued that a public monopoly was a “new form of monopoly”: a “new type of legal monopoly” which in many ways did not require any financial or other recognition while being a “public” monopoly.
If the two above are not sufficiently clear, what is a “porcelain monopoly” that is not regulated by a bank or not an insurance scheme and are for legal purposes? The answer is that if one of these two types of monopoly is being done, it should be seen that these are not only tax-free, but are also subject to the regulatory regime of the state (Hoffman, 2001).
It is important to point out (1) that while most other types of monopoly appear to be in effect in the developed world, this is the first time in history they have been applied to all markets internationally, and to any sort of regulated market in different countries. It is also important to point out that since the very beginning of capitalism, governments, banks, insurance companies, etc., have been prohibited from regulating these types of monopolies because of their inability to provide financial support for such monopolies that can only be funded by inflation or natural depletion of the resources provided for those types of monopolies. The fact that this is the first time in history is not new to business economics. The financial system has had its own kind of monopoly for centuries, but it is more recently accepted and accepted to be at the heart of many economic and social issues. Many of us are now beginning to think about the problems facing the developing world, as if we did not have all the solutions. Many developing countries (China, India, Korea, etc.) have all made significant progress in addressing their problems, and some even are doing so very successfully. This is an important area since it is not uncommon in the world to see governments from non-developed nations (including the United Nations, those in China, and even some governments from the United States) actively pursuing policies that will eventually create or keep their economies relatively large. The issue for developing countries is quite simple. No one wants monopolies that have large national monopolies, such as the one that may exist in some developed countries, such as the one in the United States where more than 1 percent of the economy is owned by a public company. Instead, they seek to regulate monopolies that are already under way. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach. The problem is that as governments have become more authoritarian, they have tried to control the market by having government appoint more than one person to oversee them. If a government makes decisions that are not consistent with the market, then it has a monopoly on those decisions, and the monopoly cannot be upheld. Since it is difficult for governments to impose a market for decision making based on the perceived value of a decision, and when decisions are not clear or valid, or which do not require public knowledge, it is critical that regulators, who can then review and enforce their actions, and not be swayed by the views of groups or individuals (such as the public, or private firms and groups that make decisions or make decisions that do not provide for public good, e.g., in consumer prices). This is a major challenge for markets in general, not just for