Changing the Rules Mid-Game: What the Connelly v U.S. Decision Means for Closely Held Corporations
Updated 09/04/25
If you are a shareholder in a closely held corporation, you need to know about the June 2024 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court case Connelly v. United States (2024). This decision (find it here) could have dramatic consequences for your business and for you, personally, as a shareholder.
Here’s the central issue:
Should life insurance proceeds paid to a closely held corporation to buy out a deceased shareholder’s portion of the business be counted as a non-offsettable asset for the purposes of calculating the decedent’s federal estate taxes?
The U.S. Supreme Court says YES.
The issue is somewhat convoluted. The upshot is that this decision allows the IRS, in some circumstances, to essentially “tax” a portion of previously untaxable life insurance proceeds without directly taxing them. Instead, it’s done by counting the life insurance proceeds as a business asset that cannot be offset, thus increasing the deceased shareholder’s share of the company at time of death and increasing their taxable estate – and possibly creating a federal estate tax liability.
This is a drastic change from what has previously been done. It’s like changing the rules while you’re in the middle of the game; you were expecting to pass Go and collect $200, but now you owe $300.
Below, we’ll look at the background of Connelly and the court’s reasoning, then discuss what it could mean for you and the other shareholders in your closely held corporation.
Note that today’s blog is just an introduction to the topic. Since this decision is so new, it’s not clear how things will shake out; it will take some time for business owners and their attorneys to determine the best course of action moving forward. But for now, we wanted to put this on your radar. We recommend speaking with your own business attorney and/or estate planning attorney about the potential consequences for you if you are an owner in a closely held corporation. (And if you do not yet have a business attorney or estate planning attorney in South Carolina, call us at the Gem McDowell Law Group at 843-284-1021 to talk.)
Connelly vs United States (2024) Summary
Briefly: Michael and Thomas Connelly were brothers and together owned a building supply company, Crown C Supply (Crown). They had an agreement to ensure the business would stay in the family if either brother died. The surviving brother would have the option to purchase the shares first, and if not, then Crown would be required to purchase the deceased brother’s shares. The corporation purchased life insurance policies of $3.5 million on each brother to this end.
Michael died in 2013 owning 77.18% of the business (385.9 of 500 shares) at death, with his brother Thomas owning the remaining 22.82%. Thomas declined to buy the shares, so Crown redeemed them for $3 million, an amount agreed upon by Michael’s son and Thomas.
Michael’s federal tax return for the year of his death was audited by the IRS. As part of the audit, an accounting firm valued the business at Michael’s death at $3.86 million, with his 77.18% share amounting to approximately $3 million. The analyst followed the holding of Estate of Blount v Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2005) that stated life insurance proceeds should be deducted from the value of a corporation when the proceeds are “offset by an obligation to pay those proceeds to the estate in a stock buyout.”
But the IRS argued that Crown’s obligation to buy back the stock did not offset the life insurance proceeds. The $3 million in life insurance proceeds should be added to the assets of the business, the IRS argued, making the total value of Crown at Michael’s death $3.86 million + $3 million = $6.86 million. Michael’s 77.18% share of this larger amount would be approximately $5.3 million, and based on this, the IRS said Michael’s estate owed an additional $889,914 in taxes.
Michael’s estate paid these taxes, and Thomas, as Michael’s executor, later sued the United States for a refund. The case went before the Supreme Court in March 2024.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
In its decision, the court states two points that “all agree” on:
- The value of a decedent’s shares in a closely held corporation must reflect the corporation’s fair market value for the purposes of calculating federal estate tax; and
- Life insurance proceeds payable to a corporation are an asset that increase the corporation’s fair market value.
The question, then, is whether the obligation to pay out those life insurance proceeds offset the asset, effectively canceling itself out.
The Supreme Court’s answer: No.
The reasoning: “An obligation to redeem shares at fair market value does not offset the value of the life-insurance proceeds set aside for the redemption because a share redemption at fair market value does not affect any shareholder’s economic interest.” The court says that no willing buyer would treat the obligation as a factor that reduced the value of the shares.
Also, for the calculating estate taxes, the point is to assess how much an owner’s shares are worth at the time of death. In this case, it was before Crown paid out the $3 million to buy Michael’s shares. Therefore, that $3 million should be added to the value of the business’s assets and income generating potential, valued at $3.86 million.
This decision will likely affect millions of business owners and trillions of dollars. Depending on your personal and business circumstances, it could affect you, too.
What This Means for You: Federal Estate Taxes
The most important thing to know about federal estate taxes is that the laws affecting them can and do change regularly. (This is one big reason it’s important to have your estate plan reviewed regularly to ensure it’s up to date with current law. Read about the unintended consequences of an out-of-date estate plan here on our blog.)
The majority of individuals subject to U.S. taxes who die in 2024 will not be subject to federal estate taxes; only about 0.2% were expected to in 2023, according to a Tax Policy Center estimate. Currently, if an individual dies in 2024 with a taxable estate valued below $13,610,000, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. This amount doubles to $27,220,000 for married couples filing jointly.
But the “applicable exclusion amount” has not always been so high. For many years, it was just $600,000. The current amount is set to expire at the end of 2025, after which it will revert to a lower amount (expected to be around $7 million), unless Congress passes more legislation changing it first. Update: The applicable exclusion amount was set at $15 million per individual as of 2026, tied to inflation from 2027 onwards, when the One Big Beautiful Bill was enacted in July 2025. Read more about that here on our blog.
When Michael Connelly died in 2013, the applicable exclusion amount amount according to the IRS was $5,250,000. Valuing his share of the business at death at $5.3 million rather than $3 million meant he had a larger taxable estate and owed additional federal taxes.
What does this mean for you? This makes estate planning tricky. You can’t know for sure when you’ll die or what the applicable exclusion amount will be that year. Depending on the value of your business and your personal assets, your estate may owe federal estate taxes you weren’t anticipating. The bottom line: If you have a buy-sell agreement and it is funded with life insurance, have it reviewed by an attorney ASAP.
What This Means for You: Succession Planning Going Forward
It’s common for shareholders in a family-owned closely held corporation to have buy-sell agreements that would keep the business in the family should a shareholder die. (Read more about buy-sell agreements on our blog here.) To that end, life insurance policies are often taken out on the shareholders to ensure funds are available to buy out the deceased shareholder’s shares at death.
For years, many business owners have had the corporation itself buy and maintain those life insurance policies on each shareholder. The proceeds went directly to the corporation and were not taxed. Additionally, they did not increase the value of the business, and thus the value of the deceased shareholder’s portion, at the time of the shareholder’s death.
Until now.
What does this mean for you? Now that this has changed after Connelly, shareholders in a closely held corporation may reconsider having the corporation purchase and maintain life insurance policies on its owners.
One option suggested in the Connelly opinion is for the shareholders to take out life insurance policies on each other in a “cross-purchase agreement.” The court acknowledges that this comes with its own set of problems, however, including different tax consequences and the necessity for each shareholder to maintain policies on the other shareholders.
Another potential option is to set up a separate LLC to maintain life insurance policies on the shareholders. In the event of a shareholder death, the LLC – not the corporation itself – would buy out the decedent’s share. This is one possible new solution to this new problem, but it is not yet tried and tested.
Finally, shareholders may continue to have the corporation purchase and maintain life insurance policies with the knowledge that each shareholder should create an estate plan for their personal assets that helps avoid federal estate taxes.
Watch This Space
As the dust settles from this decision, we’ll keep on top of it and come back with more information and advice.
Just remember – the law is not set in stone. Congress passes new legislation and courts render decisions regularly that can affect individuals and business owners. It can be hard to keep up with all the changes, which is why it’s important to have an attorney you can rely on to help keep your estate plan current and your business thriving.
Call Gem at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC. He and his team help South Carolina individuals and families create and review estate plans to protect assets and avoid family disputes. He also helps with the creation, purchase, sale, protection, and growth of South Carolina businesses through the creation of corporate governance documents, contracts, problem solving, and more. Call 843-284-1021 today to schedule a free consultation or fill out this form. We look forward to hearing from you.
Marketability and Minority Discounts in South Carolina Courts
If you’re a part owner of a closely held corporation, it can be challenging to determine the dollar value of your interest in it. Not only do closely held corporations not make their finances public, making it difficult to know the company’s value as a whole, but your interest in it could be subject to discounts – like a marketability discount or a minority discount – that reduce the value to less than you might expect.
A case heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court, Clark v Clark, discussed both marketability discounts and minority discounts (also called lack of control discounts) in the context of a divorce, illuminating how SC courts consider and evaluate such discounts.
First let’s look at the methods used to determine the value of closely held corporations, then what the discounts are, then the case itself.
Methods to determine value a closely held company
The value of a closely held corporation and an interest in it can be determined by a few different methods.
Income approach. This method examines the company’s past earnings in order to project future earnings. This approach is popular because it looks at something that’s of interest to the potential buyer: how much money they can expect to see from their investment. However, it ultimately relies on making predictions about the future which no one can really know, which is the primary disadvantage.
Value, asset, or book approach. This method adds together the value of assets (minus depreciation) and then subtracts liabilities. It’s simple and straightforward and doesn’t require any guessing, but it fails to take many factors into consideration, such as a company’s brand recognition, customer goodwill, and other intangible but important factors.
Market approach. This method compares the private company in question to public companies that are similar in size, industry, and so on to come to a value. This approach works well when there are public companies that are similar enough to the closely held corporation to make a fair comparison, but it’s a poor choice when there aren’t.
Discounts on Interest in Closely Held Corporation
Two common discounts that can be applied to an owner’s partial interest in a closely held business are the lack of marketability discount (also called, simply, the marketability discount) and the lack of lack of control discount (also called the minority discount).
Marketability discount. This discount may be applied since there’s typically a significantly smaller market of potential buyers for privately held stock compared to publicly held stock. The transaction usually takes longer and involves higher transaction costs, too.
Lack of control/minority discount. Similarly, this discount recognizes that being a partial owner without controlling interest in a company is much less appealing than owning a controlling share. (In fact, control is so important in closely held businesses that controlling interests can sell for more than face value due to what’s called “premium for control.”)
Background of Clark v Clark
In the case at hand, Clark v Clark, the central issue is the value of the minority interest held by Patricia Clark in her husband George Clark’s family business.
The two married in 1987 and filed for divorce in 2012. At the time of the divorce, George owned 75% of the family business his father founded in the late 1980s, Pure Country, Inc., which manufactures and sells custom tapestry, blankets, afghans, and so forth. George had been 100% owner after his father died but then transferred 25% interest to Patricia in 2009 when she approached him about getting equity in the company. The stock agreement for the transfer restricted her ability to sell her interest “to the business, other shareholders, or immediate family members.”
Putting a value on Patricia’s equity
In an 8-day bench trial, George and Patricia called separate experts to testify as to the value of Patricia’s 25% interest in Pure Country, Inc. George’s expert, Catherine Stoddard, used three different approaches to determine the value and explained her reasoning to the court.
- The income approach led to an initial value of Patricia’s 25% at $116,365. Stoddard then applied a 35% marketability discount to account for the issues discussed above as well as the specific stock agreement in this situation that limited Patricia’s ability to sell her interest to select buyers.
- The asset approach valued the entire company at $736,000 and Patricia’s share, with a marketability discount and a lack of control discount applied, at $83,725.
- The market approach led to a value of $65,430 for Patricia’s 25% interest.
Stoddard determined that $75,000 was the appropriate value. This included both discounts.
Patricia’s expert, Marcus Hodge, came to a different conclusion. He compared the company to other companies he believed were comparable – also in the mill industry in North Carolina, as Pure Country, Inc. was – but didn’t show how they were indeed comparable in terms of size, scope, and lines of manufacturing. He valued the entire company at $1.8 million and applied a 26% marketability discount, but later said it should not be discounted. Hodge did not apply a minority discount.
The family court debated whether or not discounts should be applied since the business was not actually going to be sold. Ultimately, it found Stoddard to be more credible and agreed that Patricia’s 25% interest was worth $75,000.
The SC Court of Appeals heard the case and affirmed the family court’s decision to apply a lack of control discount. However, it rejected the marketability discount, in part because there was no evidence that George planned to sell the company, and it wasn’t appropriate to engage in the “fiction” that the business was going to be sold.
The Supreme Court hears the case
Both parties appealed, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina heard the case in December 2019.
The supreme court agreed with the family court that a marketability discount did apply. Whether or not the company is actually going to be sold, “a party’s interest in a closely held corporation is valued according to its fair market value.” That amount is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in a sale. It’s not required that be business will actually be put up for sale, but that fiction is a helpful way to determine the value of a company or interest in it. In a footnote in the opinion, the court states, “South Carolina embraces fair market value, which is not controlled by an owner’s intent—rather it reflects the time it would take to sell the asset in question.”
However, it doesn’t mean that a marketability discount need apply in every situation. South Carolina has recognized that its applicability can and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The supreme court believes the best approach is to allow the family court or trial court judges the discretion to apply them depending on the facts of the case before them. In this case, the supreme court agreed with the family court that George’s expert, Catherine Stoddard, was more credible.
The supreme court also agreed with the family court that a lack of control discount applies here. Patricia argued that because her 25% interest would be going to George, making him 100% owner of the company, the lack of control discount should not apply. But the supreme court stated that “the minority status certainly affects an asset’s fair market value” so it’s appropriate for courts to consider applying them.
The supreme court ultimately found that the appropriate value of Patricia’s 25% interest was $86,226.
Dissenting opinion
Three justices agreed with the majority opinion, while two disagreed in an interesting dissent. They believed that neither discount should have been applied in this case. The similarities to a previous case, Moore v Moore – in which the share in question would go to the individual who owns the rest of the company, and there’s no intent to sell – are strong enough that it makes sense to follow the conclusions of that case, in which neither discount was applied. Since Patricia’s 25% would go to George, who owns the other 75%, there is no real, actual possible devaluation of her interest. Therefore, it’s not appropriate to apply either discount in this case.
Business Advice from an Experienced Business Attorney
For business legal advice on protecting your majority or minority shareholder status in a closely held corporation, work with an experienced business attorney like Gem McDowell. Gem has over 30 years of experience helping people start, grow, and protect their businesses. He and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group can help you, too. Call the Mount Pleasant office today at 843-284-1021 to schedule a free consultation.
Choosing the Right Business Entity at the Federal and State Level
As a business owner, it’s important to understand the differences between various business entities. Some of the differences include how the entity is structured, how it’s taxed, and what kind of liability protection if offers its owners.
Another difference that’s often overlooked is whether the entity is defined at the federal level or the state level. For instance, the corporation, partnership, and sole proprietorship are defined by the IRS at the federal level. The limited liability company, on the other hand, exists because of state statute. It’s treated as a corporation, partnership, or disregarded entity by the IRS for federal tax purposes.
Some entities look so similar at first glance, it can be hard to see the distinction between a business entity defined at the federal level and one at the state level. One example of this is the S-Corp versus the statutory close corporation.
Case in Point: Pertuis vs Front Roe (2018)
Even the Supreme Court of South Carolina failed to make the distinction between state and federal statute in a recent decision filed in July, 2018, Pertuis vs. Front Roe Restaurants, Inc. (find it here).
In short, Kyle Pertuis was the manager of three restaurants owned by three separate S-Corporations: Lake Point and Beachfront, both in North Carolina, and Front Roe, in South Carolina. All three S-Corporations were owned by Mark and Larkin Hammond. After working with the Hammonds for several years, Pertuis decided to leave, and this case is primarily about his ownership in the three restaurants and their valuation.
That’s not relevant to our discussion here, but what is relevant is the South Carolina Supreme Court’s assessment of whether the three S-Corporations should be amalgamated into a single entity or not. If yes, that means the three would be considered together as if they were one company. If no, the three should continue to be considered as three distinct businesses.
The Trial Court said yes, the three should be amalgamated, citing in part the fact that the Hammonds had “disregarded corporate formalities” including shareholder and board of director meetings. The Supreme Court said the trial court erred, because it overlooked the fact that all three companies were S-Corporations, which are statutorily permitted to disregard various corporate formalities including those of having shareholder and board of director meetings. The Court cites SC Code Section 33 Chapter 18, -200, -210, -220, and -230 to make these points.
But here’s where the Supreme Court erred: it failed to make a distinction between an S-Corporation (federal) and a statutory close corporation (state). The SC Code it cited is about statutory close corporations, not about S-Corporations.
S-Corporation Versus Statutory Close Corporation
An S-Corporation is a business entity that is defined by the IRS. A statutory close corporation is a business entity allowed by some states, including South Carolina.
S-Corporation
An S-Corporation is a business entity with shares and shareholders, just like a C-Corporation. Certain entities may elect to become an S-Corp by filing Form 2553 with the IRS. Unlike a C-Corp, S-Corp income, losses, deductions, and credits “pass through” to shareholders, who pay taxes on the income (or deduct the losses) on their individual federal income tax returns. This is the biggest advantage of the S-Corp and why many businesses elect to become one – to avoid the “double taxation” of the C-Corp. (Read more on C-Corp versus S-Corp here on this blog.)
Statutory Close Corporation
A statutory close corporation is a type of corporation that is defined by state statute. A “close” corporation is typically one where the shareholders are actively involved in managing the business. Not all states allow for statutory close corporations, but South Carolina does. Any corporation in South Carolina with one or more shareholder may elect statutory close corporation status by filing with the South Carolina Secretary of State.
The main reason corporations in the state elect statutory close corporation status is because it offers business owners greater freedom from corporate formalities and greater organizational flexibility than does a standard corporation.
Some provisions to ease the formalities are automatically put in place for your business once the election is made to statutory close corporation status. Other provisions are only put in place if those incorporating make an affirmative selection. These may be made by checking the appropriate boxes on the form articles. Lastly, business owners also have the option to have documents laying out management, elimination of by-laws, dissolution rights, and buy-sell provisions.
The election of filing for a statutory close corporation at the state level does not affect how the corporation is taxed at the federal level. An important thing to note is that the statutory close corporation is automatically taxed as a C-Corp unless it makes the election to be taxed as an S-Corp.
Corporations that elect statutory close corporation status find that under these less rigid rules, they can operate more like a partnership, with greater organizational flexibility and freedom from standard corporate formalities.
Understand How the Law Affects Your Business: Work with Business Attorney Gem McDowell
Choosing the right entity and structure for your business may be more complex than simply deciding on LLC or corporation or partnership. By not understanding the difference between federal and state levels of business entities, and what options are available to you, you could be missing out on some great advantages in your business.
For a better understanding of your options, or for help drafting contracts and corporate governance documents, call Gem and his associatess at Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC. Schedule an initial consultation by calling 843-284-1021 today.
Did You Choose the Wrong Business Type?
Picking what kind of business you’re going to be – “choice of entity” – is one of the first and most important things you do when you start a business. It’s an area where many business owners can get into trouble because they don’t know what they don’t know. Beyond basic issues of personal liability and how many people are in your company, there are subtleties you may miss if you don’t know the law.
Here are some common business types, and why they may be the wrong choice for your business. (If you think you’ve already set up your business as the wrong entity, don’t worry; Gem and his associates can help you.)
Sole proprietors and partnerships
The benefits of sole proprietorship and partnerships
Many businesses default to these business types because they don’t require any formal federal or state paperwork to set up. (You should still look into whether you need licenses and permits, though.) If you start selling baby blankets online and making money, you’re automatically a sole proprietor. If you and your buddies start roasting coffee and selling it, you’re in a partnership. It’s very easy, which is why these are still very common business structures.
What to watch out for
The major drawback – and it’s a big one – of being one of these two types of business entity is that you have no liability protection. Your personal assets are not protected in case your business is sued or goes into debt. That means that you can lose your money, your home, your car, and any other assets you have if the business gets into trouble. For partnerships, you take even more risk, because you’re not just reliable for your own actions and debts you incur, you’re liable for those of your partners, too.
The bottom line
It’s better to choose a different business structure altogether than to accept the risk of putting your personal assets on the line.
Limited liability companies (LLCs)
The benefits of LLCs
The big benefit is liability protection. With an LLC, as long as you maintain a separation between business and personal accounts, you will be (in most cases) protected from being held personally liable for the debts of your business. An LLC is flexible because you can have a single-person LLC or an LLC with multiple people. For taxes, the income (or loss) “passes through” to the owners to include on their personal tax returns.
For all these reasons, the LLC is an ideal business structure for many companies.
What to watch out for
With LLCs, there’s more than meets the eye. Did you know that there are four ways to establish a limited liability company in South Carolina? Most people don’t. And when most people set up the business themselves, they inadvertently set it up as the wrong type of LLC.
An LLC can either be “term” or “at will” and can be “member managed” or “manager managed.” Let’s say you and your friend are in an LLC together and you don’t yet have a buy-sell agreement. If your friend dies, and your LLC is set up as “at will” instead of “term,” you have only a limited time to buy out their portion of the business, or the business dissolves.
Or let’s say you’re in an LLC with your business partner and your LLC is set up as “member managed.” Even if that person owns just 1% of the business, they can go to the bank and take out money in your company’s name, which you’re now on the hook for.
The bottom line
The LLC is a great business structure, but you need to make sure it’s set up as the correct type of LLC. There are four possible types of LLC, and only one is ideal.
Corporations
The benefits of corporations
As a business entity, the corporation is great because it’s robust and can grow easily with capital from investors. Most of the brand name companies you know are corporations. You can choose to be a C-Corp or an S-Corp depending on how you want to be taxed. This is a great choice for a company looking to grow with outside investors and shareholders.
What to watch out for
If you’re a regular corporation, you’ll be required to have a board of directors, hold regular meetings, keep meeting minutes, and have those minutes available to shareholders to review. Failure to do these things can lead to a Plaintiff’s lawyer asking a court to “pierce the corporate veil” when the company is sued. That is, blurring the line between what’s business and what’s personal. In the worst-case scenario, you could be personally liable and find yourself paying off the company’s debts with your own assets.
But you can sidestep these problems entirely by electing to become a “statutory close corporation” by filing with the State of South Carolina. Every corporation in South Carolina is eligible. You get the benefits of being a corporation, but you won’t be required to have a board of directors and hold meetings if you don’t want to.
The bottom line
If you’re already a corporation but your company is not meticulous about holding board meetings and maintaining minutes, look into becoming a statutory close corporation. And even if you are meticulous, it’s just one more layer of protection for you.
Get Help Setting Up Your Business
The majority of companies are not set up in a way that’s optimal for the business owner, says Mount Pleasant business attorney Gem McDowell. If you want to discuss choice of entity for a new or existing business, call Gem and his associates at (843) 284-1021 today. They can help you evaluate your options and choose the entity that’s right for your business.
What’s the Difference Between a C-Corp and an S-Corp?
Deciding what kind of entity you want to be is one of the first steps when creating a new business. If you’ve already decided that your business should be a corporation, rather than a limited liability company or something else, you still have to decide whether you want to be a C corporation (C-Corp) or an S corporation (S-Corp).
The Differences Between a C-Corp and an S-Corp
A C-Corp is probably what you think of when you think of corporations; the big ones, like GM and ExxonMobil, are C-Corps. They can have an unlimited number of shareholders, and anyone may buy shares, including other companies and people in foreign countries.
An S-Corp, however, has limits on how many people may be shareholders (currently 100) and who may hold shares, since corporations, partnerships and non-resident aliens may not be shareholders. (There are other differences between the two, and you can read more on the IRS website about C corporations and S corporations.)
The main difference is in taxation. A C-Corp is taxed at the corporate level and if dividends are distributed to shareholders, those shareholders are taxed on those distributions. S-Corps seek to avoid this “double taxation” by being taxed differently. Instead, the S-Corp’s income “passes through” to the shareholders, who pay taxes on the income only once. (Same for losses.)
How to Become an S-Corp
First you need to incorporate in your state as a corporation, which by default is a C-Corp. You don’t need to file anything with the IRS or the federal government to become a corporation. But you do need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS if you want to change your status to an S-Corp. What you’re really doing is asking the IRS to tax you under a different section of the code. (The C in C-Corp is because those corporations are taxed under Chapter 1, subsection C of the IRS code; S-Corps are taxed under Chapter 1, subsection S.)
Pros and Cons of Becoming an S-Corp
Assuming that you’re deciding between being a C-Corp and an S-Corp (and not an LLC or other business entity), the two main things to consider are taxation and shareholders. Electing S-Corp status will let you avoid corporate-level taxes but may also restrict the growth of your company by putting limits on who and how many may become shareholders. You will also have to be sure to follow the IRS’s guidelines so that you don’t do anything to lose your S-Corp status.
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this question, so it’s a good idea to speak with the other shareholders, a business attorney and an accountant to decide if becoming an S-Corp is the best option for your company.
Learn More About Becoming an S-Corp
Call 843-284-1021 to speak with business attorney Gem McDowell and his associatess at Gem McDowell Law Group in Charleston. They can advise you on the pros and cons of becoming an S-Corp and provide legal advice on a variety of other issues in business law.
