2 ms·
Depending on your country, him paying out of pocket for business expenses does not necessarily mean he privately owns the product of those expenses. I would gue
by toxik 7y ago
Depending on your country, him paying out of pocket for business expenses does not necessarily mean he privately owns the product of those expenses. I would guess that in most countries, if he made it clear that this was for the company, and let you work on that code, i.e. "donated" the product of the expenses, then he is simply owed the amount by the company. He borrowed money to his company, in short. A court would easily see through that argument.
Now, that is but a tiny legal detail -- I think the other comments on interpersonal relationships are much more important. He can screw you if he really wants to, and so can you.
- mickeyM 7y agoWow, thanks a lot! I'm not sure how our country's law would look at this argument, I think it will be unclear and depend on the judge's decision, but it's definitely something that could bring Jim to senses - after all, he's got more to lose than I do. Thanks again!
- mch82 7y agoKeep in mind that while 40% equity means you get 40% of dividends, it also means you’re on the hook for 40% of losses (or of the minimum annual tax bill if your company has no profit). So retaining your equity may not be free.
- mickeyM 7y agoGood point. It's definitely something I'll consider. I guess in case I retain some equity, it would be sort of an agreement that I'll receive XY % in case the company is sold, so technically I wouldn't have a stake in the company & be responsible for the tax stuff