Yeah, to explain further:
During the time of refundable-deposit-on-stock-warrants the warrants could logistically trade on the internet ledger among third parties. But when the warrants are equal to stock, full ID of the stockholder is required and that ID-ed stockholder is responsible for IRS taxes.
When the LLC company is setup to be taxed as a partnership then any gain in net-asset-value is a taxable gain to the stockholder. So the dividend paid, actually as a return-of-capital, could be expected to approximate the taxable gain.
Or when the LLC company is setup to be taxed as a corporation then there is no taxable gain from the corporation to the stockholder unless a dividend is paid. This situation could possibly make the stock a cryptocurrency that trades among third parties on the internet ledger.
In both cases the use Rule 504 represents restricted stock that shouldn't be traded among non-accredited investors ! Basically, I suggested refundable-deposits-on-future-warrants, current warrants that are equal to stock shares, and stock shares. Possibly, refundable-deposits-on-future-warrants could be traded with support from the internet ledger. Otherwise third party ledgers are necessary for those who say that Rule 504 doesn't apply to them.
Well, the investors with deposits-on-future-warrants could include a vote for being taxed as a partnership or taxed as a corporation. And deposits-on-future warrants could be recognized as a cryptocurrency with Rule 504 not applying until the warrants are equal to stock shares.
In any of the cases, the internet ledger is public accounting of each investor's position and identified by serial key and registration key and this is without question.
So there's the policy, the company internet ledger can't participate in third-party-trading but third-party-ledgers for investors not regulated by Rule 504, those third-party-ledgers only have to match the serial key of the company internet ledger. |
