Financially Shielded Entity Separating Individuals Behind It From Risks
You are describing a corporation.  You can set up a corporation to perform business, but if you were using the money for any personal reasons the courts could Pierce the corporate veil and hold you personally liable.  Also, setting up a corporation for purely personal reasons is fraud.
It depends on the business entity. If the entity is a sole proprietorship or a general partnership, the individual are considered to be the business. There are no shares, and so yes, the owner would have to take on 75% of the expenses. For example, in the event of a lawsuit, if the claimant were awarded $1,000,000, the 75% partner would be personally liable for $750,000. In the event of a corporation, there are shares, so the responsibility is on the management of the company, not the owners, to come up with money for the expenses of the business. That money can come from the business' capital, which is the money owners have put in. Basically, for a corporate entity, the owner is not responsible for 75% of expenses, for a partnership, yes, they are. Keep in mind that if you choose a loan for the boat, you may be required by the lender to maintain a minimum coverage of insurance during the term of the loan. Further, some states require you to carry some level of liability insurance on your boat, and some entities require liability insurance when using certain bodies of water within their jurisdiction. If neither apply to you, and if you could suffer the loss of the boat itself, could you similarly suffer the damages caused by your boat if you lose control?  Let's say you hit a much larger, more expensive boat, or your boat breaks free from it's dock and damages the dock well beyond the cost of your boat. Are you also able to withstand these costs? If not, you may want to invest in minimum liability insurance. If, at this point, you are still convinced that you are not at financial risk due to the boat, I'd strongly suggest a plan of self insurance.  Take the money you would normally spend on insurance, and invest it in low risk investments that can be liquidated in a matter of months.  If you do have a problem with the boat, your risk is mitigated by the self-insurance.  If you don't, then you have not only saved that money, but increased its value. "It might be best to step back and look at the core information first.  You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities).  Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS.  Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can ""flow through"" to your personal taxes.  When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes.  You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business.  S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders.  C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders.  However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise).  In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC.  This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner.  From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions.  As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity.  This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)" If I can play the Devil's avocado, though, these foreign-owned entities will still be subject to the laws of the country they operate in. I mean, if they're State-owned, there's little accountability because the government is largely shielded from being called out if they screw up, whereas a privately owned enterprise is accountable if they make mistakes. It is also worth noting that one of the character defining features of a publicly traded company is that the management that is responsible for the day to day operations of the stands independent of those who have ownership. Shareholder of a public company typically don't have influence over the day to day running of the company. I didn't realize that! Thanks for the correction. A bit of google-fu provided this:  &gt;[Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers.](http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/information/fdiciorn.html) I imagine that it wouldn't affect consumer debt significantly. Individuals are separate entities from their government like how stockholders are separate entities from a corporation. It would probably make it harder for the country to raise money through bonds. Who wants to purchase bonds from a country that won't pay you back? "This sounds like a FATCA issue.  I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US.  The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens.  The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened.  Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors.  This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step.  Such a step would require thought and planning.  Note that there would be an expatriation tax (""exit tax"") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access.  A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons.  But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible.  Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA."