There is no dispute amongst tax advisors about whether a single-owner S-Corp is better than a single-member LLC for tax purposes: the S-Corp is better. Hands down.
But the LLC is simpler because a one-person LLC doesn't exist for tax purposes, it's just an extension of its owner. The cost of this simplicity is significantly higher taxes once you make enough money for taxes to matter.
Whether the S Corp is better than a plain LLC is up to the business owner, and it doesn't just have to be about money.
You are just wrong that an S Corp is better for me. I've done the math, I know the difference, I made the choice with other factors in mind as well.
> There is no dispute amongst tax advisors about whether a single-owner S-Corp is better than a single-member LLC for tax purposes: the S-Corp is better. Hands down.
Funny thing is that one of the three accountants I went to disagreed with this, so it's definitely not "hands down."
The LLC is only better so long as it remains a disregarded tax entity with no employees, because once either of those happens, it becomes significantly more complex than an S-Corp. So if you're fine not ever having partners or employees, and paying more in taxes for the sake of slightly more simplicity, then yes, the LLC is better.
But if you want partners, or employees, or saving money on your taxes, then the S-Corp is better. And if an accountant is telling you otherwise, then it's only because you make so little money that it doesn't matter whether you have a legal entity or not.
The problem is, as this whole comment section shows, is that is it not clear.
Because it isn't, I decided to go with the simpler option because I don't plan on having employees.