|
Hi,
I just took an exam in Business Law and wanted to pose the following
test question to the group:
A business incorporates in Texas, stations its main executive office
(headquarters) in Arkansas, and does a lot of business in Florida mainly
but not completely related to advertising and marketing.
What jurisdiction is the company under?
a) Texas only
b) Texas and Arkansas
c) Texas, Arkansas, and Florida
d) Arkansas and Florida
I marked (c) but I'm not entirely sure of my answer. Could someone explain
this scenario to me?
Thanks,
Thomas
|
| |
| |
Tom Martin wrote
a) Texas only
b) Texas and Arkansas
c) Texas, Arkansas, and Florida
d) Arkansas and Florida
I'd taken "A" myself, only because of "incorporation" in Texas. Where the
executives choose to reside seems irrelevant which knocks off the other three
that have Arkansas in it.
Of course, my BL is rather rusty..... <g>
------
have a GREAT day !!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
I'd put C too..
It seems to be under jurisdiction in all three. Incorporated in TX, main
place of business in Ark., and at least 'minimum contact' with Fla.
--
Falky
San Diego, Calif.
----------------
Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional.
This post is not intended to be legal advice.
Hi,
I just took an exam in Business Law and wanted to pose the following
test question to the group:
A business incorporates in Texas, stations its main executive office
(headquarters) in Arkansas, and does a lot of business in Florida mainly
but not completely related to advertising and marketing.
What jurisdiction is the company under?
a) Texas only
b) Texas and Arkansas
c) Texas, Arkansas, and Florida
d) Arkansas and Florida
I marked (c) but I'm not entirely sure of my answer. Could someone explain
this scenario to me?
Thanks,
Thomas
|
| |
| |
Tom Martin wrote:
Hi,
I just took an exam in Business Law and wanted to pose the following
test question to the group:
A business incorporates in Texas, stations its main executive office
(headquarters) in Arkansas, and does a lot of business in Florida mainly
but not completely related to advertising and marketing.
What jurisdiction is the company under?
a) Texas only
b) Texas and Arkansas
c) Texas, Arkansas, and Florida
d) Arkansas and Florida
I marked (c) but I'm not entirely sure of my answer. Could someone
explain this scenario to me?
Thanks,
Thomas
As a non-legal person my impression would be that the company would fall
under the jurisdiction of all three states.
For the simple reasoning that they do business within all three states.
As to which state would have a say in what the company does, would be up to
each individual state.
Consider a trucking company who may be incorporated in state A, but does
business in all the other states. For certain items involving the company
itself, the state of incorporation would take precedence. But when it comes
to the operation of the truck, the state where the truck is has
jurisdiction.
You're a one man company incorporated in State A, but you do business in
states B and C as well. Does state A rule all the time? I don't believe so.
Then one must also ask, in what light do you mean "has jurisdiction"?
This is one item which must have a few dozen different connotations.
|
| |
| |
Tom Martin <tmartin654@excite.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.22.18.30.33.837052@excite.com>...
Hi,
I just took an exam in Business Law and wanted to pose the following
test question to the group:
A business incorporates in Texas, stations its main executive office
(headquarters) in Arkansas, and does a lot of business in Florida mainly
but not completely related to advertising and marketing.
What jurisdiction is the company under?
a) Texas only
b) Texas and Arkansas
c) Texas, Arkansas, and Florida
d) Arkansas and Florida
I marked (c) but I'm not entirely sure of my answer. Could someone explain
this scenario to me?
Thanks,
Thomas
I agree with (c) too, but it would also help to understand that the
company may not be under the jurisdiction of all of the states for all
purposes.
Matters relating to the structure of the corporation, shareholders'
rights, and the like would probably be under Texas law only. It would
owe Texas franchise tax (which may be zero if the corporation has no
operations in Texas).
Since the corp has strong connections with both Arkansas and Florida,
its operations would come under the laws of those states. At a
minimum, it would need to register as a foreign corporation in those
states and retain agents for service of process there. It would owe
tax on its income in those states and be responsible for collecting
and paying over sales tax if it makes taxable sales. (Arkansas has a
graduated corporate income tax that runs up to 6.5%; Florida's is a
flat 5.5%.) If it had no operations in Texas, it might not be subject
to any Texas laws other than those governing the corporation itself.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
|
