The Oppression Remedy

I want to become an entrepreneur and start a business. Should I incorporate now, or start as a sole proprietorship and delay incorporation to a later date?‍

The advisability of incorporation is dependent on the particular facts and personal preferences of the entrepreneur. The role of the Lawyer and other professional advisors is to help draw out the relevant facts and explore personal preferences to assist the entrepreneur in making the decision that is right for her. Some of the relevant factors include:

‍Risk. Is the proposed business inherently risky? The shield of limited liability that an incorporated entity provides to the entrepreneur is an important benefit (note that the shield from liability is not absolute);

‍Tax. A valuable attribute of an incorporated entity is the relatively low tax rate (approx. 16%) payable on the first $500,000 of net income. This allows a profitable incorporated entity to grow much quicker using internally generated working capital than a similarly sole proprietorship where a marginal tax rate in excess of 50% of profits may be payable. An exception is where the sole proprietor has other sources of income and it is anticipated that the new business will suffer losses in the start-up year(s) – it may be possible to set off the losses against the other income and thus reduce the overall tax burden;

‍Costs. Incorporation of the business at an early stage is less expensive than incorporation once the business is up and running. Once the business (sole proprietorship) is up and running it is generally necessary to use a “rollover” transaction to transfer the business from the sole proprietorship to the corporation.

‍Separate Existence. An incorporated entity has a legal existence separate and apart from the entrepreneur. This provides for a number of real and perceived benefits including (generally): broader alternatives for raising capital; easier salability of the business and possible availability of lifetime capital gains exemption to avoid tax on sale, continuous existence past the life of the entrepreneur, public perception of greater substance, and easier separation of personal and business dealings.

I am considering the acquisition of a business. Long term contracts between the business and third parties are important to the business. Do such contracts affect the decision to acquire shares or assets of the business?

‍There are a number of factors to be taken into account when purchasing an existing business including tax, liability, due diligence and employee matters. Your question relates to the contracts between the business and third parties. These contracts may include rights obtained by the business necessary to carry on the business, such as licenses or franchises, or the benefit of sale or service agreements for the supply of products or services that generate revenue for the business.

A fundamental difference between an asset purchase and a share purchase is that in an asset sale the contracts must be assigned (along with the transfer of assets) while in a share sale the contracts remain intact (since only the shares of the business itself are transferred).A comprehensive review of all important contracts is advisable as early as possible during the due diligence process to determine rights and obligations. If third party consents are required, consideration must be given as to the risk that such consents may not be available in a timely manner, or at all, and whether the transaction may be better structured to avoid the necessity for assignment. In some less common circumstances there is an outright bar to assignment and consents cannot be obtained (this is the case in some government procurements). The acquisition of the business in such circumstances may only be achieved through a share sale to avoid termination of such contract(s). It should also be noted that some contracts contain provisions that deem a change of control from a sale of shares to be equivalent to assignment, and triggering the necessity for third party consent.

“I’ve been told I need a Shareholder’s Agreement - do you have a standard agreement I can use” is something we hear with frequency. It reflects an understanding by the client that a Shareholder’s Agreement is a “good thing”, but without an understanding of what that good thing is. Generally the response of legal counsel to this question is that there is no such thing as a “standard” Shareholder’s Agreement, let’s meet and talk. So what is it about Shareholder’s Agreements that are so valuable and why isn’t there a standard form, like a real estate agreement?

At a high level of abstraction, a Shareholder’s Agreement is a document that expresses the expectations of shareholders in respect of a corporation through legal obligations and rights. The task of the Lawyer in preparing the Shareholder’s Agreement is threefold - discerning what the expectations are (and those expectations are often not fully formed) –  providing counsel on the legal and tax implication on the various alternatives by which those expectations may be realized - and expressing those expectations in the form of contractual terms that bind the parties.

For example, shareholders in a narrowly held private corporation may have an expectation that on death the shares will be purchased. In the absence of a Shareholder’s Agreement, this expectation may not be realized. There is no statute or common law requiring or obligating a purchase. If the remaining shareholders are unwilling to agree to a purchase, the estate is left with the shares and a tax bill. Nothing of course prevents the parties from negotiating a purchase, but the relative bargaining power may have shifted in unpredictable ways, and planning opportunities, such as insurance funding, may have been missed. A Shareholder’s Agreement that addresses these expectations will reflect the parties prior expectations for fairness, and will create certainty.  Legal counsel will discuss alternatives including the corporate purchase of the shares, purchase by the remaining shareholders, and hybrids including spousal rollovers, the tax implications under the alternatives to the estate and to the remaining shareholders, the use of insurance funding, payment terms, security and so forth.

In family held corporations, expectations for succession (how management is succeeded) and liquidation (how the shareholding interests are turned into cash) are particularly difficult and require unique and sometimes innovative solutions. A Shareholder’s Agreement is a valuable tool in estate planning for resolving how competing expectations for liquidation and succession are accommodated.