S-Corp Election Timing: When to Convert Your LLC (and When NOT To)

The S-Corp election is the most-asked entity question after "do I need an LLC?" It is also the most frequently misapplied. The internet is saturated with variations of "save $15,000 in taxes by electing S-Corp" — framed as a universal optimization, applicable to every LLC owner at every revenue level.

The structural reality is different. The S-Corp election changes how a single line on a tax return is calculated. Whether that change results in a net benefit depends on variables that most guides either simplify or ignore entirely. For cross-border founders, the calculus includes additional constraints that can make the election structurally impossible — or structurally counterproductive — regardless of how favorable the math looks on paper.

What S-Corp election actually does

An S-Corp election does not create a new entity. It changes the tax treatment of an existing one. A single-member LLC that files Form 2553 with the IRS remains an LLC under state law — same operating agreement, same articles of organization, same registered agent. What changes is how the IRS classifies the entity for federal tax purposes.

By default, a single-member LLC is a disregarded entity. All income flows directly to the owner's personal return on Schedule C, and the owner pays self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare) on the full net profit. This is 15.3% on the first $168,600 of net self-employment income (2024 threshold, adjusted annually for inflation) and 2.9% on income above that amount. For a founder earning $120,000 in net profit, the self-employment tax alone is approximately $16,956.

With an S-Corp election, the entity becomes a pass-through corporation. The founder is now both an owner and an employee. The founder pays themselves a "reasonable salary" through payroll, and employment taxes (the equivalent of self-employment tax) apply only to that salary. The remaining profit passes through as a distribution, which is not subject to employment tax.

The structural difference: instead of paying 15.3% on all net profit, the founder pays employment taxes only on the salary portion. The distribution portion avoids that layer of tax.

This sounds straightforward. It is not.

The salary/distribution optimization math

The math behind S-Corp savings is a subtraction problem. Take the self-employment tax the founder would pay as a disregarded entity, subtract the employment taxes on a reasonable salary plus the additional compliance costs of running payroll — the difference is the savings.

The "reasonable salary" requirement is the hinge point. The IRS requires that an S-Corp owner-employee receive compensation that is reasonable for the services they perform. There is no published formula for what constitutes reasonable. The IRS evaluates based on factors including the nature of the work, comparable pay for similar roles, the company's revenue, and the time devoted. Paying yourself $20,000 while distributing $100,000 in a business where you are the only worker attracts scrutiny. Courts have consistently reclassified distributions as wages when the salary was unreasonably low.

The pattern across rulings and IRS enforcement suggests that a reasonable salary often falls in the range of 40-60% of net profit for owner-operated service businesses, though this varies significantly by industry and circumstances.

Here is how the math looks at different revenue levels:

| Net Profit | SE Tax (No S-Corp) | Reasonable Salary (est.) | Employment Tax on Salary | S-Corp Compliance Cost | Approximate Net Savings | |-----------|-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|---------------------|----------------------| | $40,000 | ~$5,652 | ~$30,000 | ~$4,590 | $1,500-3,000 | -$438 to $1,062 | | $60,000 | ~$8,478 | ~$36,000 | ~$5,508 | $1,500-3,000 | -$30 to $1,470 | | $100,000 | ~$14,130 | ~$50,000 | ~$7,650 | $1,500-3,000 | $3,480 to $4,980 | | $150,000 | ~$19,956 | ~$65,000 | ~$9,945 | $1,500-3,000 | $7,011 to $8,511 |

The structure indicates that at $40,000 net profit, the compliance costs can equal or exceed the tax savings. At $60,000, the savings begin to emerge but remain modest relative to the added administrative burden. At $100,000 and above, the arithmetic increasingly favors the election.

These numbers are illustrative, not prescriptive. Actual figures depend on state taxes, the specific salary determination, the cost of payroll services, and the founder's overall tax situation. The pattern is what matters: the savings scale with revenue, but the compliance costs are relatively fixed — and at lower revenue levels, those fixed costs consume the benefit.

Revenue thresholds and the breakeven question

The question of "when does S-Corp make sense" is really a question about where the breakeven point falls.

Below $40,000 net profit. The structure indicates that S-Corp election rarely produces a net benefit. The reasonable salary requirement compresses the distribution — there is not enough profit to split meaningfully between salary and distribution. The compliance costs ($1,500-$3,000 annually for payroll processing, additional tax preparation complexity, and state-level filings) can entirely consume any employment tax savings. Some founders at this level end up paying more overall after the election.

$40,000-$80,000 net profit. This range is case-by-case. The math may favor the election, or it may not, depending on the specific reasonable salary determination, state tax treatment, and compliance costs in the founder's situation. The savings at $60,000 net profit might be $1,500 — meaningful, but not transformative, and contingent on keeping compliance costs at the lower end.

Above $80,000 net profit. The salary/distribution split becomes wide enough that employment tax savings consistently exceed compliance costs. At $100,000+, the annual savings often fall in the $4,000-$8,000 range. The pattern suggests this is the range where the election begins to make structural sense for most service-based solo founders.

Above $168,600 net profit (Social Security wage base). Above this threshold, the self-employment tax rate drops from 15.3% to 2.9% (Medicare only) on the excess. This means the marginal savings from S-Corp election on income above the wage base are smaller — 2.9% rather than 15.3%. Founders at this level still benefit, but the incremental savings per dollar of additional revenue diminish.

Timing within the year

S-Corp election timing has specific constraints that create structural consequences if missed.

Form 2553 filing deadline. For an existing LLC to elect S-Corp treatment for the current tax year, Form 2553 is due by March 15 of that year (or the 15th day of the third month of the entity's tax year if not a calendar year). For a newly formed entity, the election is due within 75 days of formation.

Late election relief. If the deadline is missed, the IRS provides late election relief under Revenue Procedure 2013-30 for entities that intended to elect S-Corp status but failed to file on time. The relief is available if the entity meets certain requirements — including filing within 3 years and 75 days of the intended effective date. This pattern suggests that late election is possible but introduces uncertainty and requires specific procedural steps.

Calendar year implications. An S-Corp election that takes effect mid-year creates a short period where the entity transitions from disregarded status to S-Corp status. This means two different tax treatments in a single year. The administrative complexity of this split-year scenario is non-trivial and generally requires additional accounting work.

Retroactive payroll. When an S-Corp election is granted retroactively — say, for January 1 when the election was filed in March — the payroll obligations are also retroactive. The founder needs to set up payroll processing, calculate withholdings for the period since January 1, and make any required employment tax deposits. Payroll processing services can handle this, but it creates a compressed timeline for compliance setup.

The structural takeaway: the optimal timing is to file Form 2553 in the fourth quarter of the prior year or early in the first quarter, before the March 15 deadline. This allows time to establish payroll systems and avoid the retroactive calculation complexity.

When NOT to elect S-Corp

The S-Corp election is incompatible with several common founder scenarios. These are not edge cases — they represent structural characteristics that make the election impossible, inadvisable, or counterproductive.

Non-US shareholders. S-Corps have strict shareholder requirements. All shareholders are required to be US citizens or US resident aliens. A non-resident alien cannot hold shares in an S-Corp. This means founders who are not US persons — regardless of where their LLC is formed — are structurally excluded from S-Corp election. A French citizen with a Wyoming LLC cannot elect S-Corp treatment. This constraint is absolute, not a threshold question.

Founders planning venture capital funding. S-Corps can only have one class of stock. Venture capital almost always requires preferred stock — a different class with different rights (liquidation preferences, anti-dilution provisions, conversion rights). The structure indicates that accepting VC investment and maintaining S-Corp status are mutually exclusive. Founders who anticipate fundraising in the near term face a structural choice: elect S-Corp now and revoke later (which has its own consequences), or maintain the LLC or convert to C-Corp.

Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) exclusion. Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a potential exclusion of up to $10 million in gain on the sale of qualified small business stock. This exclusion is available only for C-Corp stock. S-Corps do not qualify. For founders building a business they intend to sell for a significant amount, the QSBS exclusion can be worth far more than the annual self-employment tax savings from S-Corp election. The calculus reverses: the S-Corp election that saves $5,000 per year may cost millions in excluded capital gains at exit.

Revenue below the breakeven threshold. As the math above illustrates, the compliance costs of running payroll, filing an S-Corp return (Form 1120-S), and managing the additional administrative complexity can exceed the employment tax savings at lower revenue levels. Electing S-Corp at $35,000 net profit is not structurally favorable for most founders.

Multiple entity structures. Founders with multiple LLCs, foreign entities, or complex ownership arrangements may find that S-Corp election on one entity creates complications with the others. The interaction between S-Corp income, foreign tax credits, and multi-entity reporting can increase overall complexity and tax preparation costs beyond what the employment tax savings justify.

State-level complications. Not all states recognize S-Corp election at the state level. Some states impose additional taxes on S-Corps that do not apply to disregarded LLCs. California, for example, imposes a 1.5% franchise tax on S-Corp net income (minimum $800) in addition to the $800 annual LLC fee. New York City does not recognize S-Corp election and taxes S-Corps as C-Corps for city tax purposes. The structure indicates that state-level treatment can significantly alter the federal-level savings calculation.

Cross-border complications

For founders operating across borders, S-Corp election introduces a set of complications that domestic-only founders do not face.

Non-resident alien shareholder prohibition. This is the most fundamental constraint. If a founder's tax status changes — a US citizen who renounces citizenship, a green card holder who abandons residency, a resident alien whose substantial presence test changes — the S-Corp election can be involuntarily terminated. The entity reverts to C-Corp status, triggering a five-year waiting period before S-Corp can be re-elected. This pattern suggests that founders with uncertain or transitional US tax status face structural risk from S-Corp election. For more on how tax residency interacts with entity structures, see Digital Nomad Tax Residency Guide 2026.

Foreign income and tax credit interactions. S-Corp shareholders who pay foreign taxes on S-Corp income can claim foreign tax credits on their US return. But the foreign tax credit calculation for S-Corp income follows specific ordering rules that can limit the credit's usability. Income is categorized into "baskets" (general category, passive category, etc.), and credits in one basket cannot offset income in another. Founders with income from multiple countries may find that their foreign tax credits are less useful under S-Corp election than they would be under disregarded entity treatment.

Treaty implications. Some tax treaties contain provisions that affect the treatment of flow-through entities like S-Corps. The treaty between the US and the founder's other country of tax connection may or may not recognize the S-Corp pass-through characterization. If the treaty country treats the entity as a separate taxpayer (rather than a pass-through), the mismatch can create double taxation on the same income.

Payroll compliance across jurisdictions. The reasonable salary requirement means the founder needs a US payroll setup. If the founder is physically working from outside the US, questions arise about which state's payroll taxes apply, whether the foreign work location creates additional payroll obligations, and how the salary interacts with foreign income exclusions (such as the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion under IRC Section 911). The structure of the S-Corp election assumes a domestic employment relationship. Cross-border work complicates this assumption in ways that are not always addressed in standard payroll processing. For context on the broader entity structure question, see Do I Need an LLC as a Digital Nomad?.

The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion interaction

One specific cross-border interaction warrants separate attention. The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE) under IRC Section 911 allows qualifying US citizens and residents abroad to exclude up to $126,500 (2024, adjusted annually) of foreign earned income from US taxation.

For an S-Corp owner-employee, the reasonable salary is "earned income." If the founder qualifies for the FEIE, the salary can potentially be excluded — but the self-employment tax savings that motivated the S-Corp election become partially redundant. The FEIE already reduces the income tax on that earned income. The remaining benefit of S-Corp election is the employment tax savings on the distribution portion, minus the compliance costs.

The interaction creates a structural question: does the S-Corp election still produce a net benefit when the FEIE is already reducing the tax burden on the salary component? The answer depends on the specific numbers, but the pattern suggests that the S-Corp savings are smaller for FEIE-qualifying founders than for domestic founders at the same revenue level. In some cases, the compliance costs consume the remaining benefit entirely.

The revocation question

S-Corp election can be revoked, but revocation has its own structural consequences. Voluntary revocation requires consent from shareholders holding more than 50% of the stock (straightforward for a solo founder). After revocation, the entity becomes a C-Corp by default — not a disregarded entity. Converting back to disregarded entity status requires an additional filing (Form 8832) and may have tax consequences depending on the entity's assets and retained earnings.

The five-year rule applies: once S-Corp election is revoked, a new election cannot be made for five tax years without IRS consent. This means the decision to elect — and the decision to revoke — both carry multi-year structural implications.

What this means for your structure

The S-Corp election is a specific arithmetic optimization with specific prerequisites, specific compliance costs, and specific structural constraints. It is not a universal upgrade from LLC status. The question is not whether S-Corp "saves money" in the abstract — the question is whether, given this founder's specific revenue level, tax residency, shareholder status, growth plans, and compliance infrastructure, the employment tax savings exceed the total cost of election.

For cross-border founders, the question includes additional variables: shareholder eligibility, foreign tax credit interactions, treaty recognition of pass-through status, and the interplay between S-Corp payroll and foreign income exclusions. These variables can make the election impossible, inadvisable, or simply less beneficial than the domestic-focused guides suggest.

The structure indicates that timing, eligibility, and arithmetic all matter — and that the answer for any given founder depends on mapping the specific characteristics of their situation, not applying a general rule.

---

Visual: S-Corp Election Decision Tree

Key Takeaways

• S-Corp election changes tax treatment, not entity type — it splits net profit into salary (subject to employment tax) and distribution (not subject to employment tax), but the "reasonable salary" requirement limits how aggressively this split can be used.
• Below $40,000 net profit, compliance costs ($1,500-$3,000/year for payroll and additional tax preparation) frequently consume or exceed employment tax savings; the math often favors election above $80,000.
• Non-US persons are structurally excluded from S-Corp election, and founders planning VC funding or targeting QSBS exclusion at exit face incompatibilities that may outweigh annual tax savings.
• Cross-border founders face additional complications: foreign tax credit basket limitations, treaty recognition of pass-through status, FEIE interaction with the reasonable salary, and the risk of involuntary termination if US tax status changes.
• Timing is constrained — Form 2553 is due by March 15 for current-year election, and revocation triggers a five-year waiting period before re-election is available.

References

• IRS: S Corporations — IRS overview of S-Corp requirements, election procedures, and shareholder eligibility
• IRS Form 2553: Election by a Small Business Corporation — The form and instructions for making an S-Corp election
• IRS Revenue Procedure 2013-30 — Late S-Corp election relief procedures
• IRS Section 1202: QSBS Exclusion — Qualified Small Business Stock exclusion requirements (C-Corp only)

Check your risk profile →