And actually, Ernst & Young is an LLP, not a corporation. EY’s US firm is an LLP (EY is in fact made up of many member firms.) So within the context of the US, I think you could say EY is not in fact incorporated. However in the UK where EY’s global headquarters is located, they are an UK-style LLP; which under the system in the UK means they are incorporated in the UK, LLPs are a form of corporation in the UK but they aren’t considered so (generally) in the United States.
In common parlance, this sort of business is usually referred to as a “firm” and not as a “company.”
I think this is probably right. Some corporations are publicly traded and some are not.
It was intended to be a tough question. 
I believe that the United States Postal Service is unincorporated.
Also, I believe that many voluntary associations are unincorporated – for example, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the “militias” that were organized back in the 90s were never incorporated. e.g., a bunch of guys running around the woods in guns and fatigues might call itself the “Ruritanian Militia” without ever incorporating.
If you sue the USPS, the caption of the complaint is usually something like “Suzy Plaintiff v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States a/k/a United States Postal Service”
But anyway, in common parlance, the USPS and the Ruritanian Militia would usually not be referred to as “companies.”
And, ideally, these things will increase the value of the outstanding stock, so this profit still does go to the shareholders. They just don’t get to collect that profit until they sell their shares. People who own “widow and orphan” stocks like the Bell spinoffs have done well in that not only have they received quarterly dividends over the years, but also because the shares themselves have increased in value.
Indeed, that would be illegal, wouldn’t it?
Not to mention that little outfit called IKEA.
Probably. The most common type of proprietorship business are farms. So I’d guess that the largest proprietor owned business in the country is probably some large family farm somewhere. But not a really large one - those are generally incorporated.
If they’re not required, why would he bother to take a salary of $1? I have read about similar cases (“Company X boss takes £1 salary” etc) and assumed the exact opposite of what you say: that there’s some legal reason why they have to take a salary, so they make it as small as possible. Otherwise why not just take no salary at all?
I believe that sometimes there are state laws that require that you be paid for work. I was looking around for a job several years ago and I offered to work for free in order to gain experience at a couple of places and I was told once that if I worked there, state law required them to pay me. I told them to pay me a dollar, but they still didn’t hire me.
FWIW,
Rob
I think it’s just a way of dramatizing the fact that the guy is working for basically nothing.
I think it comes from the legal concept that a contract is not valid without “consideration,” i.e. both sides have to be giving something up. So it’s not uncommon for legal contracts that are essentially gifts to still recite $1 in consideration. This wouldn’t apply to the CEO, since he’s free to quit at any time. But still, it sounds good.
I recall that Richard Feynman wrote a little story called “Where’s my Dollar?” He had apparently assigned a patent to his employer and the contract recited $1 in consideration. So he demanded that he actually be paid the dollar.
Good point. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, currently earns $1/yr total. Apple’s proxy statement reads:
Seems like that $1/yr might serve to keep him in the “employee” category and out of the “volunteer” box.
There’s probably also legal considerations involved in that receiving a salary, even a token one of a dollar, makes a person an actual employee of the company and liable to a bunch of other responsiblities. For example, if the CEO was paid nothing and created a policy that violated some environmental law, the CEO or the company would get into a complicated legal argument over the issue of who was the responsible party. The CEO would argue that the company broke the law and the company would argue that the CEO created the policy and both sides would claim that the CEO didn’t actually work for the company in order to build a legal fence between them.
I doubt it. Regardless of what he or she is paid, the CEO is an officer and has the power to act on behalf of the corporation and bind the corporation.