1099 versus corporation to corporation for payments?
Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.
Wrong.   In 2013, 41% of the total federal government's expenditures supported just Social Security and Medicare, per social security #s. Over 27% is spend on medicare and health. Military spending sits above 15%. Corporate subsidies in 2013 sat around 110 billion per year, so 3% max.  Medicaid was expanded by the ACA and now consumes 26% of total state expenditures.   Further, CBO estimates that the country's major health-care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA) will grow to 14% US GDP by 2039 -- twice the 7% average over the past 40 years.   EDIT: also wanted to point out that General Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that improper payments as a result of fraud, waste, or abuse in the Medicare program totaled nearly $50 billion in FY 2013. Bear in mind corporate subsidies in 2013 was $110 billion. Medicare ~~fraud~~ improper payments alone was 45% of total corporate subsidies. Body corporate law Queensland is the leading firm that has the highly educated and skilled lawyers. We have a dedicated team that is ready to provide you the best advice regarding your body corporate law issues. At Body corporate law Queensland we are aware of all the issues that arise in the body corporate organizations regarding the community titles. Our experts have been engaged in making the toughest decisions for the body corporate organizations that we have been working with. We will help you to get out of your comfort zone and accomplish something extraordinary at: http://www.activelaw.com.au/ "I think you are mistaken because they are consumer funded programs that ultimately get spent at entities that may or may not be corporations.  A lot of hospital networks are 'non-profit', but are still seeing record inflows.  These payments are not tax subsidies to stimulate a corporate activity (the 'truest' type of corporate welfare) or direct funding from the US government, per se.  Your argument is the equivalent of saying:  ""food stamps are nothing but a corporate subsidy for grocery stores""" "There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity.  Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds.  Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a ""Tesla Bond"", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company.  Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders].  In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity." "There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance.  To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying   Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other   costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the   end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all   necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not   responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added   paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at   the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the   employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several ""contractor"" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status.  If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee.  Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee" How is this not a breach of contract? Is it just because the corporate entity you're doing business with has gone out of business? Isn't the parent company still responsible?  It seems to me that if it's not, there are a lot of ways that an unethical person / company could game the system. "I disagree with the other respondents. If your tenant is an individual, renting in their individual capacity, there is no reason they need your SSN. They will not be sending a 1099 to you. If your tenant is a business, then your property is not a residential property. It is at least a ""corporate housing"", and you would have noticed that the contract was signed by a company representative in the capacity of being a company representative, not an individual person. In that case, that representative would also ask  you to fill a form W9, on which your tax ID should be reported. I would suggest let the tenant figure out their tax avoidance issues without you being involved." Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....