[dbuxton]

Of all the challenges you face as a startup, the legal entity you choose is possibly the least consequential. Just choose a jurisdiction where investors understand how the legals work (Delaware C-corp, UK Ltd is OK too) and there's a finite administrative burden and/or commoditized tooling in place to help you handle it.

Now, that may not work in all jurisdictions for reasons of local taxation etc (and you'll have to work out payroll tax, benefits etc) but that's almost never anything to do with the legal entity type!

[embedding-shape]

> investors understand how the legals work (Delaware C-corp, UK Ltd is OK too)

Man, at least read the title of the submission, even if you're not gonna be bothered reading the contents. This is clearly about EU, incorporating in either of those two places would defeat the entire purpose :)

> the legal entity you choose is possibly the least consequential

I think this is a bit of the goal with EU-INC, so people don't have to think about it as much. Right now, if you're multinational, you really have to be careful what country you use as your base. Hopefully, with something like this, in the future, you can also include a "EU-INC" in there, and advice people to just go with the simplest way. I think that's the dream at least.

[veltas]

> This is clearly about EU and Europe

UK is in Europe.

[karavelov]

I am sorry to break the news, but UK is not in EU, so registering a company in UK is of the same effect as registering it anywhere else outside EU

[veltas]

However it is in Europe.

[alibarber]

And yet I'm not seeing an awful lot of advantage of registering in the EU then if this campaign has to exist - clearly there's a big enough friction to registering / running a company within the EU itself.

[embedding-shape]

Fair, probably shouldn't have added "Europe" in there, removed it.

Regardless, being able to incorporate in UK doesn't help much unless you're in UK yourself, given they're no longer in the EU.

[tcldr]

> Of all the challenges you face as a startup, the legal entity you choose is possibly the least consequential.

The amount of founders who choose to domicile their company in Estonia because the ticket rates and ease look attractive and who don't understand that this will still need to be administered in their local market as a CFC (controlled foreign corporation) would probably say differently.

> Just choose a jurisdiction where investors understand how the legals work (Delaware C-corp, UK Ltd is OK too) and there's a finite administrative burden and/or commoditized tooling in place to help you handle it.

That's exactly what EU-INC is trying to provide/solve afaict.

[arka2147483647]

> Delaware C-corp, UK Ltd is OK too

Neither of which is in EU, which is exactly the point. Should be an EU one which is usable...

[veltas]

The title says "One Europe" and "Pan-European".

[arka2147483647]

This is a EU initiative. Confusingly, EU is often called Europe in spoken/non-official speech. Sort of the same way it is said that Washington does something, when it is the US gov doing something.

[pjc50]

You also need portability. As I understand it there's no problem with having a Delaware corp but all your staff and operations being in California, for example. I do not believe this is the case all across the EU! And some localities can have quite onerous formation requirements for no good reason (anything involving notaries, for example - 19th century solution to 19th century problems).

[mejutoco]

I started a limited company in Spain about 15 years ago. Just the 48h online is huge. It took maybe 15-20 days and visits to the notary, etc. (notaries are usually not available next day, for example). I think Estonia and UK have similar quick ways, but if this is as quick it is definitely an advantage over the status quo. It will affect companies without investors as well, which adds up.