>> Why the split was never declared before you started working together? > We've gone back and forth many times. It's hard to decide on equity when circumstanc

>> Why the split was never declared before you started working together? > We've gone back and forth many times. It's hard to decide on equity when circumstances change. No it's not, it's easy. I've always felt that two or more people involved in a business like this should share equity in relation to the number of hours they have actually worked, adjusted for any cash they have invested in the business. For example if neither of you have invested cash but your partner has worked 400 hours and you've worked 1200 hours then the split is 25/75 in your favor. Simple! The split changes as the ratio of hours changes or as the partner's cash investment changes, but the basic agreement here is that each partner's time and/or money is equally as valuable as that of the other partners. If one partner stops working completely his share will continue to shrink as the other partners continue to increase their relative shares by working more and more hours. This IMO is "fair" because no matter what, it's the hours the two of you have worked that determines who gets the most, with cash investment considered too of course. I told my brother this years ago when I had already invested 700 hours in a new business, as well as five thousand dollars in cash. He saw the potential of my venture and he wanted to jump in with a 50/50 deal immediately. I said no, I've invested 700 X $50 = $35,000 in labor and $5000 in cash so I'm ahead of you by $40,000 -- so here's how we will do it: My share right now is 100% and yours is 0% but you have the right to invest cash or time (valued at $50 per hour) in order to catch up to me. When you've caught up by investing as much time and/or money as me then we will be equal partners, but until then we will use this sharing ratio to determine who owns how much of the business. It's a good system that rewards partners for their actual contributions instead of some pre-conceived notion of how much each one might be worth relative to the others.