• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. All good info. So what I take from this is: If I DBA my side biz since there's very little liability to me tax or otherwise, I'm just saving a little $ in the registration. I can still separately register the LLC with myself as the sole proprietor/officer and bam, get on with it all. I don't want to make anything complicated, and I think it will be years before there's any talk of selling or upgrading from a DBA/LLC to Corp, etc. The funds will be ready later for such a thing. Sound right?
  2. Hi all, I'm a freelance IT / SMB consultant. I want to get a DBA for the "biz name" I use, lets call that BIZ-A. Aside from that, I'm starting a serious for-profit company under another name, BIZ-B. It has a specific name already as I own the web domain. So in trying to understand how LLC's are registered, does the business name default to my name unless I specify a "trade name"? Or is the LLC only in my name and I then have to register a DBA under it? Alternatively, I've always considered using my BIZ-A name as the parent company for BIZ-B, and C, D, Etc... since I am on track to being a serial entrepreneur. So is this model do-able? Would I then register BIZ-B as a DBA trade name under BIZ-A and it is ultimately responsible for all record keeping for BIZ-B, C, etc? So, as I see it... Scenario 1) DBA my BIZ-A name, and separately LLC BIZ-B. Understand that I have to pay to register/file both here. Scenario 2) LLC with my BIZ-A name, and DBA both the IT sidework company and also DBA my larger primary company under it so that both are separate tax-wise. I'm seeing the startup costs as higher here but then if I end up selling either down the road, it would be easier no? Hm I just read that as an LLC, all taxes for the business or multiple pass through me anyways? But isn't it true that a DBA get's assigned an EIN for tax purposes, and would not an LLC also get a separate EIN? Trying to figure out the basic plan here.
  3. No I do not speak their language, and not to be inappropriate, this particular individual dislikes caucasians and has met me before. I would not be the appropriate person to make the call. In law, nothing is verbal, and so that is how I like to work. Calling them and getting a promise of action wouldn't do me any good unless I was recording the call, and I would then have to disclose that at the onset. I think rather, that would be a waste of time or a last resort. Since the other individual prefers email communications (likely due to call costs) I set to work with email as my medium. I have records showing that he both received and read both emails. Further than that, I am not sure how to proceed. I want to avoid a legal dispute. But what if we do call and he refuses to take it down? It would be easy for him to say that he does not have access to a web developer (which I am), or that his IT guy is "on vacation" or that he requested the change. I would then ask for proof of the exchange but I am not sure if I have the right to request proof of action. I need legal enforcement of my request, since it can impact our business.
  4. State of origin: California Regarding company in Chile. I am not 100% familiar with the laws of the web concerning copyrights and permission to refer a name, etc... A consultant in Chile became a temporary sales representative for our company with all paperwork in order. Within the probationary period, we made the decision to terminate the agreement because there was evidence of gross misrepresentation and shady dealing. So agreement terminated, email sent, letter written, etc... Sales and marketing says we need to follow up with a request for "web link" removal since we have also terminated their rights to use our name and point at our website. I did so on 12/23 and programmed my system to do the same as a follow up email on 1/23. So far, both emails have been read several times but with no replies, when the emails specifically requested a reply. A link to our website on theirs doesn't help us, we don't want "as much traffic as possible". We are concerned with being associated with a company that may be knee deep in shady dealings. We want our website link removed but it is still there, with no response from the owner who is normally very friendly and communicative. Are there any international or www-related laws that I can cite to force the removal? How do I force their hand and get a result? Can I contact a state department in Chile about this? An Embassy? It seems so small a thing but we need to be thorough here. There is a risk potential for damage to our reputation and lost business opportunities.
  5. State: California Issue: A contractor is billing for labor incurred during the re-installation of a defective product. Manufacturer provided a replacement product immediately but publicly states on all product literature and public domain that it does not cover labor due to consequential damages, etc. The product warranty only applies if a company-certified installer conducts the installation. In this case the product in question was installed but the warranty was void at the time of installation. The manufacturer still replaced the product as is it's nature and at the same time made the installer aware of this requirement, and provided a convenient way to become a certified installer at zero cost. I am recommending that the manufacturer provide no answer or correspondence regarding this invoice. The contractor has repeatedly contacted the manufacturer asking that the invoice be looked into, requesting a status, and prompting for processing within their net 30 day terms. Questions: The manufacturer obviously can refuse to pay this invoice for consequential labor. What is the best way to do so? What wording should be used? "Invoice is void by way of refusal, per our warranty terms. We kindly request that your claim for payment is retracted." or something to that effect? Also, is the mfg obligated in any way to honor the payment terms when no account or contract between the two entities exists? How would the mfg word a polite refusal in this case and say that they are not required to comply with their payment terms?