In which country can I set up a small company so that I pay a lower rate of corporate tax?
"There are countries out there that are known as tax havens, where they offer companies low or no taxes on earned revenue. I haven't looked into this in over a decade, but recall that countries like the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Ireland, and Nauru, to name a few fit that tag. But like bstpierre stated, there's a reason why the IBM's of the world can pull that off easier then us mere mortals. They have the financial clout to make sure they have accountants that dot every i, cross every t, and close every loophole that would give an ""in"" to the folks at the IRS, CRA, Inland Revenue, or who have you." Grass is always greener at the other side of the hill.  Tax is only a small proportion of your costs. you could easily set up a small company in a so called tax haven. But are you willing to emigrate? If not, will the gain in less taxes cover the frequent travel costs? Even if you would like to emigrate less tax might be deceiving.  I recently had a discussion with a US based friend. In the US petrol is way cheaper then in Europe. THere were many examples in differences, but when you actually sum up everything, cost of living was kind of the same. So you might gain on tax, but loose on petrol, or child care to just name some examples  For big companies who think globally it makes sense to seek the cheapest tax formula. For them it does not matter where they are located. For us mortals it does.
Corporations exist to generate profit and reduce risk for investors.  This is a socially good and useful function that benefits us all.  A corporation that didn't seek to lower its tax bill to the lowest legally allowed would be breaking the law.  Rather than show up unannounced at random times and ransacking/pillaging whatever they could grab ahold of, governments have discovered (through trail and error) that having clear consistent rules about how much they demand nets them more revenue.  Thus tax law and why it is important.  Over time governments have used tax law for social engineering purposes, and as a mechanism for attempting to control their local economy. Because of this tax law has tended towards higher and higher complexity.  Throw territorial rivalry into the mix and tax law can be also used as a sort of economic weapon.  All of this yields a monstrously complex tax code, which mandates that businesses pay more and more attention to following it's arcane rules if they want to remain in business.  'Gaming the system' isn't morally wrong, it is what governments expect businesses to do, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time setting up such complex rules for business to follow.  I suspect that there will be public outcry for more rules, making the tax system even more complex, because evil businesses are attempting to follow the rules.  In a sane world governments would step back, refrain from social and economic manipulation (which they have shown themselves to be incompetent at anyway) and create as simple a tax code as possible. So that the tax code is no longer where businesses seek to gain advantage, but rather focus their time and energy into creating better products/services (every dollar spent on tax-lawyers/accountants is a dollar not spent on making the business better).  Creating more rules to punish people for following the rules is insanity. "LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is ""sole proprietorship""), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues ""you"", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from ""not needed"" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs." "These types of diagrams appear all throughout Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad book.  The arrows in the diagrams represent cash flow. For example, the first two diagrams of this type in the book are:  The idea being presented here is that an asset generates income, and a liability generates expenses.  According to the book, rich people spend their money buying assets, while middle class people buy liabilities. The diagram you posted above does not appear in the edition of the book I have (Warner Books Edition, printed in 2000).  However, the following similar diagram appears in the chapter titled ""The History of Taxes and the Power of Corporations"":  The idea behind this diagram is to demonstrate what the author considers the tax advantages of a personal corporation: using a corporation to pay for certain expenses with pre-tax dollars.  Here is a quote from this chapter: Employees earn and get taxed and they try to live on what is left.  A corporation earns, spends everything it can, and is taxed on anything that is left.  It's one of the biggest legal tax loopholes that the rich use.  They're easy to set up and are not expensive if you own investments that are producing good cash flow.  For example; by owning your own corporation - vacations are board meetings in Hawaii.  Car payments, insurance, repairs are company expenses.  Health club membership is a company expense.  Most restaurant meals are partial expenses.  And on and on - but do it legally with pre-tax dollars. This piece of advice, like so much of the book, may contain a small amount of truth, but is oversimplified and potentially dangerous if taken a face value.  There are many examples, as JoeTaxpayer mentioned, of people who tried to deduct too many expenses and failed to make a business case for them that would satisfy the IRS." "The profits that the corporation had to earn to be able to pay you ""eligible"" dividends for the dividend tax credit were already taxed, and at a somewhat high corporate rate, in the case of large public companies with big profits. The dividend tax credit, which permits an individual to earn a lot from dividends and not pay any personal income tax, essentially recognizes that the profit making up the dividend was already highly taxed to begin with via corporate income tax.  It aims to eliminate double-taxation. FWIW, if you own and run a small private business in Canada and pay yourself a dividend, such dividends are considered ""non-eligible"", i.e. you don't get as much a benefit from the dividend tax credit, since small business corporate income tax rates are much lower." A lower statuory rate, relative to the statutory rates of other developed countries (every single one of which have statutory rates much lower than ours), incentivises firms to invest more money in the US and hire more American workers, and to make good business decisions, rather than forcing them to make decisions based on steep, arbitrarily set tax liability. Corporate profits are currently taxed twice. Once at the corporate level, and a second time when the corporation's owners get paid via dividends or capital gains.   The alternative is simply to eliminate the corporate-level taxation and raise the dividend and capital gains taxes back up to normal levels. Instead of (1-35%)*(1-15%) we'd just have (1-45%) or something "First, I'm not a CPA or international tax accountant; my entire understanding of the French tax system is entirely from what I've read in places like the WSJ, Barrons, WaPo, etc.   However, ***my understanding*** is that French tax law works something like this. Let's say France has a tax rate of 35%. First, it must be assessed where the controlling entity is. In this case, if the majority of production and labor, or if the corporation is primarily based in France, it would proceed as follows. Taxes are initially paid based on transfer pricing to the original local entity (this avoids ""double taxation""). So in the example above, you would pay 10% to India on the $3,000,000 in profits ($300,000). You would then reduce the 35% French tax rate by the 10% already paid. This means you would pay an additional 25% to France ($750,000). The premise is that you have an effective ""minimum"" tax threshold for being in France. In the case above, companies like GE would have to pay the difference (this doesn't get into tax breaks/shelters on previously recorded losses, etc.).   Again, ***I AM NOT SURE ON THIS***. This is my basic understanding and am by no means a tax accountant/lawyer/etc. From what I understand; however, this hasn't necessarily been a good thing for France either (California is likely a similar case study with the Unitary return requirement). The fact is the world is very global nowadays. Its easier and cheaper for the companies to just leave instead of being forced to pay higher taxes...  IMO, Germany hit it right on the head. Low corporate tax rates with high personal tax rates. This maintains a very business friendly environment (business move there because of the skilled labor and low corporate taxes), but they effectively pass the burden on to individuals (who also benefit from the pro-business environment). You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that doesn't think Germany's economy has been very strong over the past decade (very good Soros speech that was recently posted about his analysis of the Euro and Germany's unfair benefits, but that's a whole different gear).   What I find the issue to be is the whole concept is complex enough that's difficult to explain to the average person with a 2 second attention span. That's why I like writing posts like this, to try to help people understand how finance and businesses operate behind the scenes!" Within the U.K., Third Party Resellers establish warehouses in the UK, but orders are placed overseas, and Amazon is not required to collect Value Added Tax on behalf of allegedly foreign owned resellers which rely on Amazon to sell items.  Amazon also evades the payment of tax by routing all sales through Luxembourg which, thanks to Jean Claude Juncker of the EU when Prime Minister of Luxembourg negotiated a generous tax sweetheart deal for multi national corporations (incl Amazon) to establish their base in Luxembourg.