How do I keep an S-Corporation open when it has no revenues
If you have no net income or loss, you can usually get away without filing a tax return.  In Illinois, the standard is: Filing Requirements   You must file Form IL-1120 if you are a corporation that   has net income or loss as defined under the IITA; or   is qualified to do business in the state of Illinois and is required to file a federal income tax return (regardless of net income or loss).   http://tax.illinois.gov/Businesses/TaxInformation/Income/corporate.htm Just keep your filing fee and any business licenses up to date, paying those fees personally and not out of business money (that would make for a net loss and trigger needing a tax return).  Frankly, with how easy it is to register a new corp, especially an LLC which has many simplicity advantages from an S-corp in certain cases, you might still be better off shutting it down until that time.
"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation.  Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year.  As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead.  You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the ""Target"" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.]   All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4.   For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits).  This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends.  There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends.  For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject.  Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF.  Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split).  This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price).  On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%.   That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares.  That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do.  ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem.  Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point).  You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds." "Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like ""Open Positions"" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many." Alright bud- I took the day off today so I'll play along. I'm going to focus my answers to be US-centric because this is the realm in which I have experience; if you're from elsewhere then accept my apology in advance.  &gt; So you're saying a company has no responsibility whatsoever to ensure its employees make fair wages?   No, I'm not saying that- a company has a legal responsibility to ensure employees make wages considered fair under the FLSA, for one, including any municipal or state laws surrounding employee pay. As far as I know, litigation surrounding Uber's FLSA issues is still pending and as I'm not a federal judge I can't weigh in on the legality of their various pending lawsuits.  &gt; That the market will determine a person's salary based on their valuability?  I'm also not saying that- it's weird of you to keep putting words in my mouth. I don't disagree with that sentiment but I definitely didn't argue it as a point in my earlier comment.  &gt; What if market forces align to reduce wages in order to increase profitability?  Market forces do this on a regular basis at the corporate level- this is called a negative profit margin and it's literally happening right now (or probably in about 10 minutes when the NYSE opens) with a company who's product you're using to write this comment. It'll also probably trend back upward in the time it takes me to finish this comment. Unfortunately salaries and compensation packages for employees of most types are flat and focused on averages based on something called math. The concept is more technically referred to as profit equals revenue minus cost, with cost being a floating variable dependent on (you guessed it) market forces. This gets a lot more complicated as you delve into specifics and as you seem to have a fairly untenable grasp on business operations as it is I'm worried it's futile to get too much more specific.  &gt; That's exactly what's happened in the last 30 years and people like you protecting corporate greed is the reason why living wages has stagnated barely matching inflation while executive salaries have skyrocteted.   I'm not certain what I did to 'protect corporate greed' in my comment besides buy a product I want at a cost I deemed fair, but ignoring that- the CEO pay vs employee pay argument has been debunked about a thousand times over by anyone who, again, understands math- it's division this time so be careful not to sprain something. A quick google search shows a figure reflecting Wal-Mart's CEO's total compensation at ~$22mm including stock options, salary, and bonuses. Another google search shows a total 2.1mm employees of the company. Quick division reflects that each employee could pocket about $10.5 a year if the firm outright did not pay their CEO by which that means they don't have a CEO, and thus do not have a functioning company. Congratulations, your logic just made 2 million people unemployed.  &gt; You're either ignorant of the big picture, or a shill for a system that exploits the masses.  Sorry- I'm new to this subreddit so I don't know if this is what passes for intelligent discussion around here; but that's a very narrow way of looking at the world. I could also say '[you're] either ignorant of business operations, or a shill for non-functioning economies'; but I'd like to believe an individual with the ability to use a computer is not that illiterate.  I'm confused about your argument as a whole- are you saying I shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart or take an Uber because these companies don't pay their employees salaries you've deemed 'fair'? Can I get a list of places I'm allowed to buy things from, then? Yes, this extra income would be taxed at your marginal rate because it is increasing your total income. This does not necessarily apply to all income, however. Capital gains are taxed at a different rate. Depending on the amount of extra work, you may wish to consider setting up a corporation. Corporations are taxed entirely differently. This would also give you the opportunity to write off far more of your expenses, but be aware of double taxation. Investopedia has a good article on double taxation. The issue is that the corporation must pay taxes on the revenue and then, when you take out the money either as salary or dividends, you personally will pay tax. It may leave you better off, even with the double taxation. Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than your marginal tax rate, generally. And you can write off much more inside a corporation. If considering this, talk to an accountant and discuss your expected revenue from consulting. The accountant should be able to quantify the costs and benefits. "Be careful of the other answers here. Many are wrong or partially wrong. The question implies that you knew this, but for everyone else's benefit, you can keep you LLC organization and still elect to be treated as a S-Corp by the IRS just for tax purposes.  You do this by filing Form 2553 with the IRS. (You can also, by the way, elect to be taxed as a ""regular"" C-Corp if you want, although that's probably not advantageous.  See Form 8832.) The advantage of electing to be treated as an S-Corp is that income beyond what constitutes a ""reasonable salary"" are not subject to social security and medicare taxes as they would when paid was wages or counted as self-employment income on Schedule C.  Depending on what you need to pay yourself to meet the ""reasonable salary"" test, your overall income, and other factors about your business, this could result in tax savings. Contrary to other answers here, making this election will not force you to create a board of directors.  You are still an LLC for all purposes except taxes, so whatever requirements you had in organization and governance at the state level will not change.  You will have to file a ""corporate"" tax return on Form 1120S (and likely some corresponding state tax form), so that is additional paperwork, but this ""corporate"" return does not mean the S-Corp pays taxes itself. With a couple of exceptions, the S-Corp pays no taxes directly (and therefore does not pay at the corporate tax rate). Instead the S-Corp apportions its income, expenses, and deductions to the owner(s) on Schedule K.  The owners get their portion reported from the S-Corp on Schedule K1 and then include that on their personal Form 1040 to pay tax at their personal rate. In addition to filing Form 1120S, you will have to handle payroll taxes, which will create some additional administrative work and/or cost. Using a payroll service for this will likely be your best option and not terribly expensive. You've also got the issue of determining your reasonable salary within the rules, which is the subject of other questions on this site and other IRS guidance." Value is the key word here. Traders should ideally trade on the perceived future value of a company.  Changes in the perceived future value is what leads them to buy and sell shares. That said, if a company were to have some catastrophe happen (say it and all of its employees and property disappeared)  and somehow every shareholder agreed to not sell, the companies market capitalization would remain unmoved even though the value of the company is gone. So theoretically yes, but it is unlikely. Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expensive option for growth. Some of the options are debt, selling equity to venture capitalists, or selling equity on the open market (going public). If they choose debt, they pay interest on that debt. If they choose to sell equity to venture capitalists, then your shares get diluted, but hopefully the growth makes up for some of that dilution. If they choose to go public, dilution is still a concern, but the terms are usually a little more favorable for the company selling because the market is so liquid.  In the US, current regulations for publicly traded companies cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1M/year, so that's the rule of thumb for considering whether going public makes sense when calculating the cost of fundraising, but as mentioned, regulations make it less advantageous for executives who choose to sell their shares after the company goes public. (They can't sell when good spot prices appear.) Going public is often considered the next step for a company that has grown past the initial venture funding phase, but if cash-flow is good, plenty of companies decide to just reinvest profits and skip the equity markets altogether. yeah but most likely, it's a 1x liquidation preference. The startup isn't going to generate cash flows enough to pay off the initial investment to the investor. Technically it isn't exactly specified as only triggered on a liquidation event because OP didn't specify the real legal language but it seems likely that's the case. Point 2 is exactly what a liquidation preference is. No way the owner of the company is participating in anything until the investor gets his initial investment back.