Jump to content

Talk:Corporation sole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WackyAurelionSol (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 15 June 2024 (Fixed Bad Link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

natural persons

[edit]

Must these persons always be "natural persons"? PML.

Obviously, that's the (double) import of "sole" incorporation, a single person (at a time) and a single office . 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who

[edit]

Someone speaking in the House of Commons in 1998 gave a lovely description of this concept:

The Lord Chancellor is working on that, but he is rather like Dr. Who, because now and again he goes into the Tardis and comes out reborn and reinvigorated. The latest one popped out on 1 May and has promised that there will be a better fast-track procedure in the small claims court.

[1] Marnanel 22:04, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) >THIS IS REV-LEWIS REFERING OR RESPONDING TO THE CORPORATION-SOLE? THE WORD WITH THE QUESTION SIGN, HAS BEING NULLIFY PERTAINING TO THE "SOUL" OF HUMAN BEINGS OTHERWISE THIS FROM YOU DETERMINE AS A "SLICK" ONE.< (oswaldclewis@comcast.net) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.103.117 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tax exemption

[edit]

I'm interested in how corporation sole in the Roman Catholic church relates to Sun Myung Moon tax case. Recalling the case from 20 years ago, I remember that the Unification Church defended Rev. Moon's holding of one million dollars in an interest-bearing account under his own name as being analogous to corporation sole; on that basis, they argued he should not have been held "criminally liable" for tax evasion (or "failing to report personal income") on the interest accrued during the 3 years he held the money before the Unification Church of America was incorporated as a 501c3. --Uncle Ed 14:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

As I am not a lawyer, I cannot understand the wording of the first paragraph: "This allows a corporation (usually a religious corporation) to pass vertically in time from one office holder to the next successor-in-office, giving the position legal continuity with each subsequent office holder having identical powers to his predecessor."

"...to pass vertically"? Vertical means an upright angle, or in economics: "involving all stages from production to sale." I see no definition in my dictionary which would explain the meaning of the word in this sentence.

Secondly, I do not understand what "legal continuity" could mean. Does it mean a continual legal process which goes uninterrupted? There are many possibilities.

Looking at this statement objectively, I would take it to mean that the corporation itself is handed over to a new owner (sole.) Is this correct? The paragraph badly needs be better explained by someone who understands the subject. Neurolanis (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on fixing this, but for the sake of clarity in case anyone reads this, the "corporation sole" is akin to an "office" (office as in position, like political office). It's not exactly the same as a political office, as positions like Representative for Hawaii's First District don't come with additional personal rights (usually property rights) affiliated with the position. The position of ruling monarch over the United Kingdom, whether King or Queen, comes with ownership of a lot of property. Yet that property belongs the corporation. For example, the Queen would not be allowed to sell a piece of the Crown Jewels, even though she owns them personally. This is because they don't belong to her as a "natural person," or individual human being. It belongs to the King/Queen of the United Kingdom and can't be detached from that office. Were she to abdicate, she will lose all her royal property. Most importantly, the office has to be incorporated. Therefore, a position like the American Presidency is not a corporation sole per say, even though you could argue he temporarily "owns" the White House in that no one else can claim residency there other than himself and his family, and he cannot sell or rent out the White House, American Law does not classify the presidency as a corporation sole, so it isn't one. If this sounds like kind of an archaic legal category, that's because it is. It's largely used for royal and religious offices that were established in the Middle Ages.
So Neurolanis's last point is largely correct, in that the corporation is handed over, though it wouldn't quite make sense to call the new person an owner. A holder is better, in line with "holding office," as they don't own the corporation and lack the rights that come with ownership.
The vertical pass is chronological as it passes from one office holder to the next. The clearest example of this would be the office of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom (though this applies to most monarchies in most cases). When the ruling King or Queen of the United Kingdom dies, the "office" passes to his or her heir. So when George VI died, his daughter Elizabeth inherited his office and became Queen Elizabeth. When she passes away, Prince Charles will inherit the office and become King Charles (though his royal name may or may not actually become King Charles, as you're allowed to chose your royal name. George VI's birth name was Albert).
And this is where "legal continuity" comes in to play. There will never not be a King or Queen of England. When the reigning monarch dies, the office doesn't die; a new body is attached to the corporation sole without any interruption of legal power or need to reincorporate. Though the new King or Queen has a coronation, there is no need to re-establish that the King of the United Kingdom is a thing that comes with certain rights and powers. In that sense, it's like the King never died in a way. This is because when the King dies, his body dies, but not the corporation sole of the British King. Instead, he is replaced. This is called "the King's two bodies," and is the most famous example of the mechanics of a corporation sole. JapanOfGreenGables (talk)) 06:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vertically in time

[edit]

This does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.226.103 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Here are some sources that may be of use in expanding the article:

Hopefully these can be of some help. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corporation sole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corporation sole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Free villages

[edit]

I was told in a Permaculture course, Corp Sole can be used in an autonomous village settlement. Commonwealth cooperative assets have a sales tax but the community would be tax free.

I cant find any thing on this agreement for future micro grid circular economies using renewable resources for cooperative assets. Any help would be greatly appreciated. www.ecosutra.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecosutra (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporation_sole&oldid=1229144519"