City of Los Angeles Business License
JeffP
City Business License.
I work in Burbank, it is it's own city and in Pasadena, it too is its own city,
I do however live in the community of Valley Glen, within the City of Los
Angeles.
I do not advertise, I do not have a business card, nor do I have a DBA or even
named letter head.
I receive checks and a 1099 at the end of the year from each of the companies I
do work for and I file a Sched. C.
I receive a small amount of income from another associate who partners on
projects at the Burbank office, he lives in Los Angeles and has an LLC, an
employee and a business license in L.A.
If I have left out any pertinent information, I'll be glad to re-post.
Part of my question is where does my business exist? If I don't do work in
L.A., does the city have a claim that because my address for myself is within
the city, I therefore have a business in Los Angeles(?)
Other thoughts(?)
Does Microsoft or Kleenex have a city license to do business here?
If a representative of a Chicago based company sells computer hardware and
installation services, flys out here and completes the sale and installation,
does that company need a L.A. city license?
I don't get why anyone should have or would have a city license. It doesn't
seem fair, maybe I should move to a city that has reasonable fees and rules that
is either within or near Los Angeles and continue to work as I do.
TIA
JeffP....
Paul
For a business license, it matters what the law says, not just where
you physically have offices. See below, but having a "nexus", which
is a physical presence, can require the necessity of a business
license for the areas that you have business activity.
> If I don't do work in L.A., does the city have
> a claim that because my address for myself is within
> the city, I therefore have a business in Los Angeles(?)
It's possible. Your home is your only physical business location.
> Other thoughts(?)
IF you haven't, ask over at misc.taxes.moderated where you'll get a
more complete answer. I believe there are several posters there from
California.
> Does Microsoft or Kleenex have a city license to do business here?
It's possible.
> If a representative of a Chicago based company sells computer hardware and
> installation services, flys out here and completes the sale and installation,
> does that company need a L.A. city license?
Again, it's possible.
I have a client with business licenses in every city they conduct
business in, if that city/state mandates that the company has one for
every city they conduct business (sales/service) in. Geeorgia only
requires one business license that's good in the entire state.
Alabama requires a business license in each city you do business in.
CA might be the same.
> I don't get why anyone should have or would have a city license.
Because it's the law, and the city (and therefore the public) has a
record of businesses, what kind of business, who owns it, etc and so
on, and that information is used to be sure that the business is
complying with all the laws that apply to that kind of business.
It's also a great revenue producer for the city.
> It doesn't seem fair, maybe I should move to a
> city that has reasonable fees and rules that
> is either within or near Los Angeles and
> continue to work as I do.
That may not make that much of a difference.
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Dale Eastman
Paul wrote:
>>I don't get why anyone should have or would have a city license.
>
>
> Because it's the law, and the city (and therefore the public) has a
> record of businesses, what kind of business, who owns it, etc and so
> on, and that information is used to be sure that the business is
> complying with all the laws that apply to that kind of business.
>
> It's also a great revenue producer for the city.
Revenue Producer = Another tax.
Paul's big on taxing things.
Paul's also big on calling names, and insulting anyone that doesn't
agree with him.
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of January 18, 2004, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
The website of Mr. Rose is http://taxableincome.net/
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
Some clues as to why they won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/tmachine/explain.html
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/block/block.html
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
All email missing the magic word is deleted unread.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm
Hormel makes the good spam.
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
One of the nice, political thingies about a business license is, in
many cases, the business license is baing paid by businesses that
otherwise don't have a presence in that city/county. Voters (people
who live in that city/county)like the fact that other people are
paying in to their city/county coffers. Otherwise their property tax
is generally higher. Same for sales tax, where there is a draw from
surrounding counties of willing shoppers.
The fact that you don't get it is just sad.
Dale Eastman
What you don't get is that you condone thievery.
But then again, maybe you do.
Lying and thieving go hand in hand.
Or in the case of what you support, hand in other's wallet.
Christopher Green
> "JeffP" <JPgmt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > Part of my question is where does my business exist?
>
> For a business license, it matters what the law says, not just where
> you physically have offices. See below, but having a "nexus", which
> is a physical presence, can require the necessity of a business
> license for the areas that you have business activity.
Los Angeles is unusually aggressive in dunning individuals for
business licenses when there is any discernible connection between the
individual and the city. The mere fact that he's been dunned doesn't
by itself mean he's liable: the city's net is cast wide and tends to
catch independent contractors and small business owners who live in
the city but conduct business elsewhere. L.A. business licenses are
relatively costly, running from about 0.4% of gross on up. There is
also a city payroll tax. These are large sources of revenue for the
city.
The Municipal Code defines what it means to be "engaged in business"
in L.A. (Ch. II, Sect. 21.00(i)): maintaining a fixed place of
business, owning or leasing property used for business, maintaining
inventory, regularly soliciting business, doing work (at least seven
days a year), or driving for business purposes. Doing any of these
things within L.A. city limits makes one "engaged in business" in L.A.
If a business is "engaged in business" in L.A. and has gross receipts
over $5,000, a business license is required.
If the OP has a home office in L.A., he's SOL: he can take out a
business license or go live elsewhere. If he really does no work in
L.A., but maintains a fixed place of business in Burbank and does all
his work there, then he has a valid defense. If reality is somewhere
in between, L.A. will still put up a good argument that he is engaged
in business in L.A.
[snip]
> > Does Microsoft or Kleenex have a city license to do business here?
>
> It's possible.
L.A. has a system of "Vendor Permits" for companies that have no place
of business in L.A. but ship goods in interstate commerce for sale
there. These permits are supposed to establish that the city has
investigated and determined that the company is not "engaged in
business" in L.A.
Because L.A. alone is a colossal market for all sorts of goods, just
about any major manufacturer or merchant has offices there and pays
L.A. business license tax and payroll tax on its activities there.
>
> > If a representative of a Chicago based company sells computer hardware and
> > installation services, flys out here and completes the sale and installation,
> > does that company need a L.A. city license?
>
> Again, it's possible.
If it takes seven days' work on site, or happens enough times a year
to make seven days, it almost certainly would. If less, probably not.
--
Chris Green
JeffP
I called the city and found an expression....
... has a presence in the city.....
That is quite ambiguous, but in response to Chris's post, I see that having an
address in the city would put that business/person liable for getting a Business
Tax Certificate a.k.a. Buisness License.
I would suggest considering getting a PO Box for an IRS filing address to remove
one's presence.
Argh!
JeffP....
"Christopher Green" <cj.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:c31fa7b1.04020...@posting.google.com...
Dale Eastman
Christopher Green wrote:
> The Municipal Code defines what it means to be "engaged in business"
> in L.A. (Ch. II, Sect. 21.00(i)): maintaining a fixed place of
> business, owning or leasing property used for business, maintaining
> inventory, regularly soliciting business, doing work (at least seven
> days a year), or driving for business purposes. Doing any of these
> things within L.A. city limits makes one "engaged in business" in L.A.
> If a business is "engaged in business" in L.A. and has gross receipts
> over $5,000, a business license is required.
> If it takes seven days' work on site, or happens enough times a year
> to make seven days, it almost certainly would. If less, probably not.
Oh oh. I didn't get an L.A. business license when I drove a semi-truck.
I might have drove through L.A. seven times on seven days in one year.
Tsk Tsk. Shame on all those out of state, truck driving scofflaws who
haven't bothered to get those licenses.
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
It's a tax. One that is paid when you voluntarily operate a business
within that jurisdiction. One that can be avoided by not operating a
business within that jurisdiction.
What I condone is following the law, not as you want it to read, but
the way it is written and most importantly, the way it is applied.
Dale Eastman
Paul A. Thomas, CPA wrote:
Unh huh, Right.