硅谷初创企业实体决策选择的解释

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Gregg D. Polsky
{"title":"硅谷初创企业实体决策选择的解释","authors":"Gregg D. Polsky","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3123793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Perhaps the most fundamental role of a business tax advisor is to recommend the optimal entity choice for nascent business enterprises. Nevertheless, even in 2018, the choice-of-entity analysis remains highly muddled. Most tax practitioners across the United States consistently recommend flow-through entities, such as LLCs and S corporations, to their clients. In contrast, a discrete group of highly sophisticated tax professionals, those who advise start-ups in Silicon Valley and other hotbeds of start-up activity, prefer C corporations. \n \nPrior commentary has described and tried to explain this paradox without finding an adequate explanation. These commentators have noted a host of superficially plausible explanations, all of which they ultimately conclude are not wholly persuasive. The puzzle therefore remains. \n \nThis article attempts to finally solve the puzzle by examining two factors that have been either vastly underappreciated or completely ignored in the existing literature. First, while previous commentators have briefly noted that flow-through structures are more complex and administratively burdensome, they did not fully appreciate the source, nature, and extent of these problems. In the unique start-up context, the complications of flow-through structures are exponentially more problematic, to the point where widespread adoption of flow-throughs is practically infeasible. Second, the literature has not appreciated the effect of perplexing, yet pervasive, tax asset valuation problems in the public company context. The conventional wisdom is that tax assets are ignored or severely undervalued in public company stock valuations. In theory, the most significant theoretical benefit of flow-through status for start-ups is that it can result in the creation of valuable tax assets upon exit. However, the conventional wisdom makes this moot when the exit is through an initial public offering or sale to a public company, which are the desired types of exits for Silicon Valley start-ups. Thus, the most significant benefit of using a flow-through (at least in theory) is eliminated because of the tax asset pricing problem. Accordingly, while the costs of flow-through structures are far larger than have been appreciated, the benefits of these structures are much smaller than they appear.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining Choice-of-Entity Decisions by Silicon Valley Start-Ups\",\"authors\":\"Gregg D. Polsky\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3123793\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Perhaps the most fundamental role of a business tax advisor is to recommend the optimal entity choice for nascent business enterprises. Nevertheless, even in 2018, the choice-of-entity analysis remains highly muddled. Most tax practitioners across the United States consistently recommend flow-through entities, such as LLCs and S corporations, to their clients. In contrast, a discrete group of highly sophisticated tax professionals, those who advise start-ups in Silicon Valley and other hotbeds of start-up activity, prefer C corporations. \\n \\nPrior commentary has described and tried to explain this paradox without finding an adequate explanation. These commentators have noted a host of superficially plausible explanations, all of which they ultimately conclude are not wholly persuasive. The puzzle therefore remains. \\n \\nThis article attempts to finally solve the puzzle by examining two factors that have been either vastly underappreciated or completely ignored in the existing literature. First, while previous commentators have briefly noted that flow-through structures are more complex and administratively burdensome, they did not fully appreciate the source, nature, and extent of these problems. In the unique start-up context, the complications of flow-through structures are exponentially more problematic, to the point where widespread adoption of flow-throughs is practically infeasible. Second, the literature has not appreciated the effect of perplexing, yet pervasive, tax asset valuation problems in the public company context. The conventional wisdom is that tax assets are ignored or severely undervalued in public company stock valuations. In theory, the most significant theoretical benefit of flow-through status for start-ups is that it can result in the creation of valuable tax assets upon exit. However, the conventional wisdom makes this moot when the exit is through an initial public offering or sale to a public company, which are the desired types of exits for Silicon Valley start-ups. Thus, the most significant benefit of using a flow-through (at least in theory) is eliminated because of the tax asset pricing problem. Accordingly, while the costs of flow-through structures are far larger than have been appreciated, the benefits of these structures are much smaller than they appear.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3123793\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3123793","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

也许商业税务顾问最基本的角色是为新生商业企业推荐最佳实体选择。尽管如此,即使在2018年,实体分析的选择仍然非常混乱。美国各地的大多数税务从业者一直向客户推荐流通实体,如有限责任公司和S公司。相比之下,一群高度复杂的税务专业人士,那些为硅谷和其他创业活动温床的初创企业提供建议的人,更喜欢C公司。先前的评论描述并试图解释这一悖论,但没有找到充分的解释。这些评论家注意到了许多表面上看似合理的解释,他们最终得出的结论都不完全有说服力。因此,难题依然存在。本文试图通过考察现有文献中被严重低估或完全忽视的两个因素来最终解决这个难题。首先,尽管之前的评论员曾简要指出,流通结构更复杂,行政负担更重,但他们并没有充分认识到这些问题的来源、性质和程度。在独特的启动环境中,流通结构的复杂性问题成倍增加,以至于广泛采用流通实际上是不可行的。其次,文献没有意识到上市公司背景下令人困惑但普遍存在的税务资产评估问题的影响。传统观点认为,在上市公司股票估值中,税收资产被忽视或严重低估。理论上,流通状态对初创企业最重要的理论好处是,它可以在退出时创造有价值的税收资产。然而,传统观点认为,当退出是通过首次公开募股或出售给上市公司时,这是硅谷初创企业想要的退出类型。因此,由于税收资产定价问题,使用流通(至少在理论上)最显著的好处被消除了。因此,尽管流通结构的成本远大于人们所认识到的成本,但这些结构的益处远小于它们所表现出的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Explaining Choice-of-Entity Decisions by Silicon Valley Start-Ups
Perhaps the most fundamental role of a business tax advisor is to recommend the optimal entity choice for nascent business enterprises. Nevertheless, even in 2018, the choice-of-entity analysis remains highly muddled. Most tax practitioners across the United States consistently recommend flow-through entities, such as LLCs and S corporations, to their clients. In contrast, a discrete group of highly sophisticated tax professionals, those who advise start-ups in Silicon Valley and other hotbeds of start-up activity, prefer C corporations. Prior commentary has described and tried to explain this paradox without finding an adequate explanation. These commentators have noted a host of superficially plausible explanations, all of which they ultimately conclude are not wholly persuasive. The puzzle therefore remains. This article attempts to finally solve the puzzle by examining two factors that have been either vastly underappreciated or completely ignored in the existing literature. First, while previous commentators have briefly noted that flow-through structures are more complex and administratively burdensome, they did not fully appreciate the source, nature, and extent of these problems. In the unique start-up context, the complications of flow-through structures are exponentially more problematic, to the point where widespread adoption of flow-throughs is practically infeasible. Second, the literature has not appreciated the effect of perplexing, yet pervasive, tax asset valuation problems in the public company context. The conventional wisdom is that tax assets are ignored or severely undervalued in public company stock valuations. In theory, the most significant theoretical benefit of flow-through status for start-ups is that it can result in the creation of valuable tax assets upon exit. However, the conventional wisdom makes this moot when the exit is through an initial public offering or sale to a public company, which are the desired types of exits for Silicon Valley start-ups. Thus, the most significant benefit of using a flow-through (at least in theory) is eliminated because of the tax asset pricing problem. Accordingly, while the costs of flow-through structures are far larger than have been appreciated, the benefits of these structures are much smaller than they appear.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信