Regulatory: Piercing the veil of a single-member LLC
A possible trap for the unwary
January 11, 2012 at 05:42 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The single-member limited liability company is a powerful tool in structuring both simple and complex business relationships. In its simplest form, a sole proprietorship can be structured as a single-member limited liability company to protect the proprietor from liability while maintaining the simple tax and operational flexibility inherent in a sole proprietorship. In more complex business structures, assets or business operations can be segregated into separate, single-member LLCs to compartmentalize risk and build liability firewalls.
Despite its great flexibility and usefulness, the single-member LLC can be a trap for the unwary. A single-member LLC is disregarded as a separate entity for tax purposes, but recognized as a separate legal entity for liability purposes. In some respects, those concepts are at odds.
In the corporate context, courts have been willing to disregard the corporate entity where there exists such unity between the corporation and the individual that the corporation ceases to be separate from its owners and, in effect, becomes disregarded as a separate entity. Because a single-member LLC already is disregarded as a separate entity for tax purposes, it may be especially easy for the LLC owner to treat the LLC as a disregarded entity for liability purposes as well. If a court adopts the corporate standards for piercing the veil, this could cause the LLC owner to lose the liability protection afforded by the LLC structure.
Compared to the corporate structure, the LLC structure is relatively new. Case law dealing with piercing the LLC veil is still developing, and the cases decided so far are neither uniform nor entirely predictable. This is particularly true with single-member LLCs.
A common feature of the LLC statutes in various states is they each expressly provide that an LLC member will not be liable for the debts and obligations of the company by virtue of being a member of the company. Despite the clear language of the LLC statutes that would seem to provide an impenetrable shield to the LLC owners, many courts considering piercing the veil of an LLC have adopted the same analysis used with respect to corporations.
Considering the most significant factor in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil is whether the corporation's separate identity is respected for all purposes by the owner, and because the single-member LLC already is disregarded as a separate entity for tax purposes, a single-member LLC must take extra care to maintain its separate identity.
While each situation is unique, at a minimum, a single-member LLC should:
- Assure it is properly capitalized given the nature of its business operations
- Maintain separate accounting records and bank accounts, and avoid comingling funds with its owner
- Not cause excessive capital to be distributed to the owner
- Be clear in its agreements and communications with third parties that it is acting on its own behalf and not strictly on behalf of its owner
The single-member limited liability company is a powerful tool in structuring both simple and complex business relationships. In its simplest form, a sole proprietorship can be structured as a single-member limited liability company to protect the proprietor from liability while maintaining the simple tax and operational flexibility inherent in a sole proprietorship. In more complex business structures, assets or business operations can be segregated into separate, single-member LLCs to compartmentalize risk and build liability firewalls.
Despite its great flexibility and usefulness, the single-member LLC can be a trap for the unwary. A single-member LLC is disregarded as a separate entity for tax purposes, but recognized as a separate legal entity for liability purposes. In some respects, those concepts are at odds.
In the corporate context, courts have been willing to disregard the corporate entity where there exists such unity between the corporation and the individual that the corporation ceases to be separate from its owners and, in effect, becomes disregarded as a separate entity. Because a single-member LLC already is disregarded as a separate entity for tax purposes, it may be especially easy for the LLC owner to treat the LLC as a disregarded entity for liability purposes as well. If a court adopts the corporate standards for piercing the veil, this could cause the LLC owner to lose the liability protection afforded by the LLC structure.
Compared to the corporate structure, the LLC structure is relatively new. Case law dealing with piercing the LLC veil is still developing, and the cases decided so far are neither uniform nor entirely predictable. This is particularly true with single-member LLCs.
A common feature of the LLC statutes in various states is they each expressly provide that an LLC member will not be liable for the debts and obligations of the company by virtue of being a member of the company. Despite the clear language of the LLC statutes that would seem to provide an impenetrable shield to the LLC owners, many courts considering piercing the veil of an LLC have adopted the same analysis used with respect to corporations.
Considering the most significant factor in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil is whether the corporation's separate identity is respected for all purposes by the owner, and because the single-member LLC already is disregarded as a separate entity for tax purposes, a single-member LLC must take extra care to maintain its separate identity.
While each situation is unique, at a minimum, a single-member LLC should:
- Assure it is properly capitalized given the nature of its business operations
- Maintain separate accounting records and bank accounts, and avoid comingling funds with its owner
- Not cause excessive capital to be distributed to the owner
- Be clear in its agreements and communications with third parties that it is acting on its own behalf and not strictly on behalf of its owner
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 2Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 3Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 4Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 5'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250