> You want the benefits of a business while not having to worry about angry customers annoying you at your house.
What's the alternative here? Pay a couple hundred a year for a forwarding address that is sufficiently real enough for Stripe to accept?
Asking out of personal interest. I'm working on the solopreneur route and looking at what's available for myself. Would prefer to keep it away from my personal address.
You want the benefits of a business while not having to worry about angry customers annoying you at your house
Or one may wish to continue making money to feed themselves even though they cannot afford housing. Have you ever had to apply for apartments on self employment income?
Generally in the U.S., this has been a settled question for over a century. If you really have questions, there is guidance about this to govern pretty much every jurisdiction in the continental U.S.
For a solo entrepreneurship business in the U.S., your home is your place of business if you do not have another fixed place of business.
The address here would presumably be the one where you can be physically served a lawsuit.
My concern is that if I had an online business that I worked on at home, I still wouldn’t want my home address to be given out by my payment processor.
When I bought my house many many years ago, I think I got something in the sale agreement about being able to operate a business out of my house provided it was just a mail-order business without associated traffic. (The seller was continuing to live next door.)
So I'm not sure about zoning in most places--especially today--but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some restrictions on business-related commercial traffic.
> I think I got something in the sale agreement about being able to operate a business out of my house
I don't understand this. Whatever requirements (if any) that apply to your home business are going to be set by the city/county (and those can change over the years). Your home purchase agreement doesn't have any jurisdiction over that.
I'm am not a property lawyer but I assume that's the case here. I assume were I to sell my property, the buyer couldn't unilaterally forbid my (now different) neighbor from using my driveway and, if they were to sell, the new neighbor couldn't forbid me from walking down to the river. Fortunately, people are pretty reasonable around where I live.
In my case I own land where certain parts cannot be logged beyond removing hazards. The deed for the land included the restriction, though my lawyer was at a loss as to who would seek to enforce it.
I assume that this is also how conservation covenants work. A new owner doesn't get to say "just kidding" and develop land that was turned into a property allowing public use with use restrictions.
In the jurisdiction where they have to actually agree to sell you the property. They gave me a couple of things (e.g. traverse their land to the river). I gave them a couple of things (like making the business aspect explicit and being able to use my driveway to get to their stable). Perfectly normal to have easements and other restrictions/conditions.
It's not that complicated.
You want the benefits of a business while not having to worry about angry customers annoying you at your house.
I don't blame you.
We all want to have cake and eat it, too.