.jpeg)
You’ve found the co-founder you want to build with. Now comes the part most founders rush: deciding how to bring them in. Get the equity, the agreements and the commitment mechanics right, and you set the company up to scale. Get them wrong, and you bake in tax bills, disputes and governance gridlock that surface at exactly the wrong moment — your next raise or your exit. Here’s what to decide, and why each call matters.
This article takes a multi-jurisdictional view across Australia, the UK and the US, and flags where the position changes between them.
The first equity decision is where the new shares actually come from. You can:
They feel similar. They are not.
Selling shares you already own is a disposal — and a disposal can trigger a capital gains tax (CGT) event for you personally, even though no real money may change hands at a startup valuation. Issuing fresh shares from the company sidesteps that personal disposal: instead of you selling down, everyone on the cap table is diluted pro rata. For most early co-founder situations, issuing new shares is the cleaner path because it avoids an unnecessary tax event for the existing founder.
Founders in the US should also consider Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) under Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code:
You should confirm the position with a US adviser before relying on it, as the rules are detailed and the stakes are high.
Then there’s the split itself. Don’t default to 50/50 because it feels even-handed. Anchor the equity split to what each person actually brings — capital, intellectual property, time, networks and the role they’ll own. A 50/50 split between a founder who built the product over two years and a partner joining today rarely reflects reality, and it can leave you deadlocked when you most need a tie-breaker.
Tax treatment of share issues and transfers varies by jurisdiction and by your personal circumstances. Treat the above as the shape of the decision, not as advice on your situation — take legal and tax advice before you issue or transfer shares.
Founders routinely reach for the wrong document. The two you’ll hear about are a Founders Agreement and a Shareholders Agreement, and they are built for different moments:
If your company is already incorporated and generating revenue, a Founders Agreement is the wrong tool — you need an SHA.
The terminology also differs by jurisdiction:
In the US, before the stockholders’ agreement is signed, make sure each founder has executed a Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement (CIIA). This assigns to the company any IP a founder created before incorporation that is relevant to the business, and all IP they create going forward. Without it, your company may not actually own the technology it’s built on — a problem that quickly surfaces in due diligence.
When putting a CIIA in place:
A co-founder who leaves in year one holding a large slice of equity is one of the fastest ways to make your company un-fundable. Reverse vesting is how experienced founders solve this.
Under reverse vesting, your co-founder receives their full shareholding up front, but the company has the right to buy back — or the founder forfeits — any unvested shares if they leave before an agreed period. A common structure is vesting over 3–4 years with a 1-year cliff, meaning nothing vests until the 12-month mark, after which shares vest in monthly or quarterly increments. It conditions full entitlement on staying and contributing.
This differs from standard option vesting, where someone earns the right to acquire shares over time. With reverse vesting the shares are issued now and clawed back if commitment lapses. Investors expect to see it; its absence is a red flag in diligence.
In the US, restricted stock subject to reverse vesting interacts with the Section 83(b) election. Filing the election within 30 days of grant lets the founder be taxed on the stock’s value at grant — when it is typically near zero — rather than as it vests and (hopefully) appreciates. Miss the 30-day window and the cost can be significant.
Watch out for the operational trap:
Additionally, the 83(b) election interacts with QSBS: the holding period for QSBS purposes generally begins at grant only if an 83(b) election is filed, making a timely filing doubly important for founders targeting the Section 1202 exclusion.
This is US tax territory: confirm the position with a US adviser before relying on it.
Bringing on a co-founder and want the equity and vesting structured to survive diligence? Talk to a Biztech lawyer — we structure founder partnerships across AU, UK and US.
There’s a strong temptation to write the operating manual into the SHA — who has the final say on technology versus sales, how board votes break, which co-founder signs off on hiring. Resist it.
Binding agreements are deliberately hard to change. Amending an SHA needs the requisite shareholder consent and a round of legal cost every time. Operational roles, decision rights and priorities, by contrast, move fast in a young company — the split that made sense at 5 people is wrong at 50.
Put the operating detail where it belongs:
Reserve the SHA for the things that genuinely need legal permanence — equity, transfer restrictions, reserved matters and exit. Keep the fluid stuff fluid, and the fixed stuff fixed.
Two exposures catch founders early: how you contract with customers, and how you handle their data.
On contracting, you need robust terms and conditions that define the scope of what you provide and disclaim what you don’t. Clear scope and a sensible liability cap are cheap insurance against an expensive claim.
On data, if you collect personal information, you have obligations — and this is where jurisdiction matters most:
When you engage a lawyer to paper a co-founder arrangement, settle one question up front: who does the lawyer act for — the company, or an individual shareholder?
It matters because founders’ interests can diverge. The terms of an SHA sit between you and your co-founder; on those terms, you are across the table from each other. A lawyer acting for the company cannot simultaneously advise each founder on their personal position where those positions conflict.
Handle it cleanly at the outset. Company counsel drafts the documents in the company’s interest; each founder is free to take independent advice on their own position before signing. Naming who is represented — and who isn’t — proactively manages the conflict and prevents a later dispute about who was being protected all along.
Bring on a co-founder deliberately, not on a handshake:
Ready to structure a co-founder partnership that holds up at your next raise and your exit? Book a call with our team — we work across AU, UK and US, around the clock. Operating in one market today and planning to expand? Stay ahead of the changes — sign up for our updates.



International law firm Biztech Lawyers elevates clients, providing vision and confidence to navigate global markets and seize opportunities.
Whether you’re looking for advice in a particular jurisdiction or exploring how we can help expand your business, discover more below.