Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 9 MIN READ

Choosing a state when you don't live there, late 2021

Thirty months after Wyoming's repackaging, what a non-resident formation actually buys

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
9 min read Updated
Contents 6 sections
  1. The question, answered directly
  2. What the Wyoming pitch actually delivers, and where it frays
  3. The Wayfair shadow keeps lengthening
  4. When non-resident formation still makes sense
  5. A word on what happens next
  6. Sources

f you live in California and you form a Wyoming LLC to escape the $800 annual tax, you will still owe the $800. That sentence is the whole article in one line, and everyone who gets this wrong gets it wrong because they did not read that sentence carefully the first time.

The rest is the texture: what the Wyoming pitch actually delivers in late 2021, where it has quietly weakened, and what a non-resident formation still makes sense for when the franchise math is unforgiving and the federal government has just put a beneficial-ownership registry on the calendar.

The question, answered directly

You are a resident of State A. You are considering forming an LLC in State B because State B has lower fees, better privacy, no income tax, or a lawyer friend who said Delaware. The question is whether that saves you money or creates work.

The answer is almost always: it creates work. Every state treats an LLC that conducts business within its borders as subject to its own registration regime, regardless of where the LLC was formed. That second registration is called foreign qualification, and it restores most of what you thought you were avoiding. You pay State B to form. You pay State A to register as a foreign LLC. You now have two registered agents, two annual reports, and two sets of dissolution paperwork when you eventually wind down.

California is the clearest case. Under Cal. R&TC § 17941, every LLC "doing business" in California owes an $800 annual tax, and the statute's reach includes LLCs organized elsewhere but operating in the state. The FTB's position on what counts as "doing business" is broad: a single California-resident member actively managing the LLC is usually enough. The $800 is not avoided by forming in Nevada or Wyoming; it is owed by the foreign-qualified entity exactly as it would be owed by a domestic one.

New York follows a different theory and arrives at the same place. Foreign LLCs doing business in New York must qualify with the Department of State, pay the filing fees, and satisfy the publication requirement in two newspapers in the county of the New York office, which runs into the low four figures in Manhattan. The Wyoming LLC saved nothing; it added a second state to the compliance set.

The rule of thumb, dateline late 2021: form where you operate. Form elsewhere only when the elsewhere is doing structural work that your home state cannot, and when the tax and qualification math in your home state has been accounted for rather than assumed away.

What the Wyoming pitch actually delivers, and where it frays

Wyoming markets its LLC on three claims: no state income tax, low annual fees, and strong privacy. Two of those survive scrutiny. The third has frayed since the 2019 cycle, and the 2021 federal news has nearly finished the job.

The no-income-tax claim is true at the state level and irrelevant at the operational level. Your LLC's income is taxed where it is earned, not where the LLC is organized, subject to apportionment rules you do not escape by filing a Certificate of Organization in Cheyenne. If you live and work in Oregon, Oregon taxes your share of the pass-through income.

The low-fee claim is true and small. Wyoming's annual report license tax is $60 minimum, calculated on assets located and employed in Wyoming, and for most single-member holding LLCs that number stays at the floor. Filing to form runs in the low three figures. Against California's $800 floor or New York's publication costs, Wyoming is cheap. Against the cost of running two states at once, the savings evaporate.

The privacy claim is where the story has changed. Wyo. Stat. § 17-29-209 does not require the members or managers of an LLC to be named on the public filing; the articles require only the registered agent and the organizer. That is real: walk up to the Wyoming Secretary of State's entity search and you will see the agent, not the owners. But three things have eroded what that buys you.

First, if you foreign-qualify that Wyoming LLC in your home state, your home state's filing may require you to name a manager or member, and that filing is public. The anonymity survives only if you never operate outside Wyoming, which for most readers of this article is hypothetical.

Second, banks. Under the 2018 FinCEN customer due-diligence rule, banks opening an account for a legal entity must collect and verify the identity of each beneficial owner at 25% or more and of one controlling individual. That information is not public, but it is recorded, and it is subpoena-available. The Wyoming LLC's owner is anonymous at the Secretary of State and named at Wells Fargo.

Third, and the reason the Wyoming privacy pitch is materially weaker at the end of 2021 than it was two springs ago: Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act in January 2021 as Title LXIV of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. The operative section is codified at 31 USC § 5336, and it requires reporting companies, a definition that captures the overwhelming majority of small LLCs, to report beneficial-ownership information to FinCEN. The reports are not public, but they are maintained in a federal registry accessible to law enforcement and, under specified conditions, financial institutions. FinCEN issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on April 5, 2021, soliciting comments on how the registry would work in practice. The implementing regulations are still pending as this article goes out, and the reporting obligation has not yet commenced, but the statutory direction is set. The Wyoming LLC that was genuinely opaque in 2019 will not be opaque by the time the rule takes effect.

That shift matters for readers whose main reason for choosing Wyoming was owner anonymity. Anonymity at the state Secretary of State remains. Anonymity against the federal government is ending. If the threat model was "I do not want my ex-business-partner to subpoena a list of my holdings from the state," Wyoming still helps. If the threat model was "I do not want my ownership recorded anywhere," late 2021 is not the year to rely on that.

We worked through the pre-CTA calculus thirty months ago in the May 2019 walkthrough of choosing a state when you don't live there, which predates the statute but frames the transition underway now. The earlier December 2016 treatment of the same question was written in a world where none of the federal reporting machinery existed and Wyoming's privacy pitch was at its strongest.

The Wayfair shadow keeps lengthening

A separate current has been running in the background since June 2018: economic nexus for sales tax. South Dakota v. Wayfair let states impose sales-tax collection obligations on out-of-state sellers based on revenue or transaction thresholds, with no physical presence required. Every state with a sales tax has now adopted some version of economic nexus, and the thresholds have been converging, most commonly at $100,000 in gross receipts or 200 transactions per year per state.

The relevance for choosing a state of formation is limited but real. Your state of formation does not determine where you owe sales tax; your customers do. Forming in no-income-tax, no-sales-tax states does not exempt you from collecting sales tax in states where your customers live. The Wayfair regime has pushed this cost downward to smaller sellers every year since 2018, and as thresholds in some states drop or are re-examined in late 2021, the distinction between a Wyoming formation and an operational tax footprint has only hardened. You are responsible for collection in every state where you cross threshold, and nothing about where you organized changes that.

The practical implication: if your business ships goods to consumers, sales-tax compliance is the dominant cost center of operating across state lines, and none of it is saved or worsened by picking Wyoming over Delaware over your home state. Sales-tax posture belongs in a different column of the spreadsheet from formation-state choice, and conflating the two is how people end up paying for multi-state counsel to untangle a structure that did not need to exist.

When non-resident formation still makes sense

There are three situations in late 2021 where forming outside your home state earns its complexity.

The first is a venture-backed operating company headed for a priced round. Institutional investors will ask for Delaware, and if they do not, their counsel will. The conversion cost from a home-state LLC to a Delaware C-corp at Series A is several thousand dollars in legal fees plus whatever tax leakage the conversion generates, and it leaves artifacts in the cap table that sophisticated buyers notice at exit. If you know you are headed there, start there.

The second is a holding vehicle whose only connection to any state is its filing address. A Wyoming or Nevada LLC that holds passive intellectual property, investment securities, or intercompany notes, with no employees, no operations, and no physical footprint anywhere, can legitimately live in the state of formation and nowhere else. The foreign-qualification problem is what you get when the entity "transacts business" in another state, and passive holding that generates only portfolio income typically does not meet that definition. You still owe income tax somewhere, routed through the beneficial owners, but the LLC's own state footprint is limited to Wyoming. This is a real use case and it is narrower than the Wyoming marketing suggests.

The third is asset-protection structuring for real estate. A single-member Wyoming or Delaware LLC holding real property located in, say, Texas must still foreign-qualify in Texas and comply with Texas law on charging orders and creditor remedies. The state of organization matters only to the extent its internal-affairs rules and its charging-order exclusivity are more favorable than the situs state's, and that difference needs to be worth the extra filings. For a portfolio of a few rental houses in one state, a domestic LLC in that state is almost always cleaner. For a multi-state real estate fund holding dozens of properties, the structuring question changes and a formation-state-of-convenience can be justified.

Everything outside those three patterns is the same advice we gave thirty months ago: form at home, revisit when the business crosses a threshold that makes the home state genuinely inadequate.

A word on what happens next

The pending FinCEN rulemaking from the April 2021 ANPRM is the biggest open question on the calendar. When the final rule lands, every reporting company will owe an initial report, and updates will be due within a defined window after ownership or control changes. The administrative load is not huge per entity; it is huge in aggregate for founders who have stacked holding LLCs across three states for reasons that were mostly cosmetic. Rationalizing those structures before the rule kicks in is cheaper than rationalizing them after.

The rule of thumb is unchanged by any of this: form where you operate, and treat formation-state tourism as a specific decision that needs a specific reason. If you cannot name the reason in a sentence, you do not have one.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.