LLC Domestication by State: All 51 Jurisdictions, With the Statute

Updated August 17, 2026. Quick answer: 43 of 51 US jurisdictions let a foreign LLC become one of theirs while staying the same legal entity, and 8 do not. Going the other way, 42 permit it and 9 do not — the extra state is Delaware, which accepts LLCs in and provides no statutory way out to another US state. Every row below cites the statute it rests on, read 2026-08-12.

Why every published list gives a different number

You will find this counted as 37 states, as 40, and as “29 don’t.” The lists are not sloppy so much as they are searching for a word. The mechanism’s name is not its function. A state either has a statute that lets an entity formed under another jurisdiction’s law become one of its own LLCs, or it does not — and states are split on what to call that:

The state’s own word for itHow many statesWhat it does
domestication25Named domestication, redomestication, transfer or continuance
conversion18Same function, different caption — the statute is titled conversion
no mechanism8No jurisdiction-change route at all

So a table built by searching for the word “domestication” undercounts by 18 states: 25 + 18 = 43, which is exactly the number that permit it. The 18 captioned conversion are Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin. Several of them are routinely published as states that do not allow domestication. They all allow it.

One row in the table below will look inconsistent with that count, and it is deliberate. Delaware is counted here among the states whose caption is domestication, because that is what its article is called — but the table’s word column reads conversion for Delaware, because Delaware’s domestication article does not reach US states and the route that does is captioned conversion. The column tells you what you would actually file under; the count tells you why the published lists disagree. Delaware is the one state where those two differ.

One warning about that word in the other direction: nearly every state lets an LLC convert into a corporation within the same state, and that is a different transaction entirely. What matters is whether the act’s defined “converting entity” or “other entity” expressly reaches an entity formed under another jurisdiction’s law.

All 51 jurisdictions

JurisdictionInOutInbound route’s own wordCitationFiling fee
AlabamaYesYesconversionAla. Code §§ 10A-1-8.01 to 10A-1-8.04$100
AlaskaYesYesdomesticationAS 10.55.501; AS 10.50.075$275
ArizonaYesYesdomesticationA.R.S. § 29-2501; § 29-4003$50
ArkansasYesYesdomesticationArk. Code Ann. § 4-38-1051$300
CaliforniaYesYesconversionCal. Corp. Code § 17710.08$70
ColoradoYesYesconversionC.R.S. § 7-90-201(2)$100
ConnecticutYesYesdomesticationConn. Gen. Stat. § 34-641(c)$100
DelawareYesNoconversion6 Del. C. § 18-214$330
District of ColumbiaYesYesdomesticationD.C. Code § 29-809.06(a)$220
FloridaYesYesconversionFla. Stat. § 605.1041(3)$25
GeorgiaYesYesconversionO.C.G.A. § 14-11-212$95
HawaiiYesYesconversionHaw. Rev. Stat. § 428-902.5(b)$100
IdahoYesYesdomesticationIdaho Code § 30-22-501(b)$30
IllinoisYesYesdomestication805 ILCS 415/301(b)$100
IndianaYesYesdomesticationInd. Code § 23-0.6-5-1(b)$30
IowaYesYesdomesticationIowa Code § 489.1051(2)$50
KansasYesYesdomesticationK.S.A. 17-78-501 through 17-78-506published fee not resolvable
KentuckyNoNo——no filing — no route exists
LouisianaYesYesconversionLa. R.S. 12:1308.3published fee not resolvable
MaineYesYesconversion31 M.R.S. Sec. 1645(1), read with Sec. 1502(14); mechanics at Sec. 1647, Sec. 1648$175
MarylandYesYesconversionMd. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 4A-1101(a)(7), (c)$300
MassachusettsNoNo—Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C, § 69no filing — no route exists
MichiganYesYesconversionMCL 450.4709; definitions at MCL 450.4705a(1)(a)$75
MinnesotaYesYesdomesticationMinn. Stat. § 322C.1011, subd. 1$60
MississippiYesYesdomesticationMiss. Code Ann. § 79-37-501(b)$50
MissouriNoNo——no filing — no route exists
MontanaYesYesdomesticationMont. Code Ann. § 35-8-1402(2)published fee not resolvable
NebraskaYesYesdomesticationNeb. Rev. Stat. § 21-179(a)$30
NevadaYesYesdomesticationNRS 92A.270 (also reachable via NRS 92A.195(1))$350
New HampshireYesYesdomesticationRSA 304-C:205, Ipublished fee not resolvable
New JerseyYesYesdomesticationN.J.S.A. 42:2C-82.a$75
New MexicoNoNo——no filing — no route exists
New YorkNoNo——no filing — no route exists
North CarolinaYesYesconversionN.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 57D-9-01, 57D-9-20 to 57D-9-23published fee not resolvable
North DakotaYesYesdomesticationN.D. Cent. Code § 10-32.1-67(1)$50
OhioYesYesconversionOhio Rev. Code § 1706.72(A)published fee not resolvable
OklahomaYesYesconversion18 O.S. § 2054.1$100
OregonYesYesconversionORS 63.470(1)(a)$100
PennsylvaniaYesYesdomestication15 Pa.C.S. § 371(b)$70
Rhode IslandYesYesconversionR.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16-5.1$50
South CarolinaNoNo—S.C. Code Ann. §§ 33-44-901 to 33-44-914no filing — no route exists
South DakotaYesYesdomesticationS.D.C.L. § 47-34A-910(a)published fee not resolvable
TennesseeYesYesconversionTenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-703$20
TexasYesYesconversionTex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 1.002(10); § 10.101$300
UtahYesYesdomesticationUtah Code § 48-3a-1051(2)$17
VermontYesYesdomestication11 V.S.A. § 4152(a)$20
VirginiaYesYesdomesticationVa. Code § 13.1-1075(A)$100
WashingtonNoNo—RCW 25.15.436(1)no filing — no route exists
West VirginiaNoNo——no filing — no route exists
WisconsinYesYesconversionWis. Stat. § 183.1041(2)$150
WyomingYesYesdomesticationWyo. Stat. § 17-29-1012$100

“In” means a foreign LLC can become this state’s LLC; “Out” means this state’s LLC can leave for another US state. Fees are the entity-law filing fee only — not registered-agent, foreign-qualification or tax-clearance costs, which this table does not measure.

The states with no route, and what they do have

These eight do not offer domestication in either direction. They are not all negative for the same reason, and the difference matters if you are relying on it:

StateDirectionBasis
Delawareoutboundstatute limits it
Massachusettsinboundstatute limits it
Massachusettsoutboundstatute limits it
South Carolinainboundstatute limits it
South Carolinaoutboundstatute limits it
Washingtoninboundstatute limits it
Washingtonoutboundstatute limits it
Kentuckyinboundno provision in the code read
Kentuckyoutboundno provision in the code read
Missouriinboundno provision in the code read
Missourioutboundno provision in the code read
New Mexicoinboundno provision in the code read
New Mexicooutboundno provision in the code read
New Yorkinboundno provision in the code read
New Yorkoutboundno provision in the code read
West Virginiainboundno provision in the code read
West Virginiaoutboundno provision in the code read

7 of those cells rest on exclusionary text — a section affirmatively limits the mechanism, and the row cites it. 10 rest on absence: nothing in the corpus read permits it, and the row correctly cites no statute, because there is none to cite. An absence finding is a weaker thing than an exclusion, and we would rather say so than publish one undifferentiated count of eight.

Every one of the eight has a merger path that reaches foreign LLCs:

StateMerger routeFiling fee
KentuckyKRS 275.350 to 275.365not published as one figure
MassachusettsMass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C, § 59(b)not published as one figure
MissouriMo. Rev. Stat. §§ 347.127 to 347.135$25
New MexicoNMSA 1978 § 53-19-62$100
New YorkNY LLC Law § 1001(b), certificate of merger under § 1003$60
South CarolinaS.C. Code Ann. § 33-44-904not published as one figure
WashingtonRCW 25.15.416 to 25.15.431not published as one figure
West VirginiaW. Va. Code § 31B-9-904, articles of merger under § 31B-9-905not published as one figure

This is the correction we would most like to see propagate: the fallback is merger, not dissolve-and-re-form. A page that tells a New York owner to dissolve is giving worse advice than the statute requires.

Delaware accepts LLCs in and has no statutory way out

The most surprising row in the table, and it survived a dedicated attempt to knock it down. Three sections do three different jobs, and the popular one is the wrong one:

SectionWhat it actually governs
6 Del. C. § 18-212Domestication of non-United-States entities. Its own text excludes an LLC formed under the laws of a state. This is the section everyone cites and it does not answer the question.
6 Del. C. § 18-214Conversion of certain entities to an LLC. Its “other entity” carries no such carve-out. This is the real inbound route.
6 Del. C. § 18-213(a)Delaware’s outbound transfer section — restricted to “any jurisdiction, other than any state,” and § 18-101(19) defines State to include DC, Puerto Rico and every US territory.

So a Delaware LLC has no statutory outbound domestication route to any US state; the way out is merger under 6 Del. C. § 18-209, which reaches “any other state.” “Delaware allows domestication” is true inbound and false outbound.

Fees range twentyfold, and several are two filings

From Utah at $17 to Nevada at $350. 38 of 51 rows carry a resolvable amount. Some routes are two filings rather than one — Delaware’s is a certificate of conversion plus a certificate of formation filed simultaneously, North Dakota is $50 plus $135, and Wyoming’s outbound transfer carries its own toll on top of the inbound fee. A single-number fee column would be wrong for those states, which is why the filing description carries the detail.

Honest gap. 7 states permit domestication but do not publish a fee we could resolve to a single current figure: Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota. Those cells carry no number. A state can have a statute-verified filing whose fee nobody publishes, and inventing one would be the easiest way to make this table wrong.

Citations that are already going stale

Statutes move, and a domestication table ages badly. These are the changes we know about:

StateWhat changed
UtahTitle 48 ch. 3a is renumbered to Title 16 ch. 20 effective 2026-10-01 (2026 S.B. 40), with domestication consolidated at 16-1a-1002 and following. The substance is materially identical; the citation goes stale.
MontanaThe domestication statute, § 35-8-1406, is new in 2025. Any source dated before 2025 saying Montana does not permit domestication was right when written and is wrong now.
South Dakota§§ 47-34A-1010 to -1015 are repealed (SL 2022 ch. 168). The live provision is § 47-34A-910; search engines still index the dead numbers.
Illinois805 ILCS 180/37-31 to 37-34, the LLC Act’s own domestication sections, are repealed effective 2018-07-01. Domestication now lives in the Entity Omnibus Act, 805 ILCS 415 Art. 3. A table citing the LLC Act is citing repealed law.
IowaChapter 489’s domestication sections were renumbered from 489.1010 and 489.1011 to 489.1051 through 489.1056 by 2023 Acts ch. 152.
Virginia§§ 13.1-1010.1 and -1010.3 are repealed; current law is Art. 14, §§ 13.1-1074 to -1080.
KansasFee amounts are in an active 2026 reduction cycle and the official Kansas Register shows two conflicting figures for the same filing, so this table stores no Kansas amount.

What this table does not establish

It is entity law only. It does not say whether your EIN survives, what the IRS treats as a continuation, or what a state revenue department does on exit — those are federal and tax questions this table does not source. It does not test whether a particular filing office will accept a particular filing in practice. And it is LLCs only, deliberately: several states permit corporate domestication and not LLC domestication, which is precisely how the published tables go wrong.

Two rows to treat with extra care. New Mexico is the one negative we could not re-test on an independent path — four routes to current New Mexico statutory text and to the Secretary of State’s forms catalogue all failed. It is single-sourced, not doubtful. Alabama’s answer holds, but the verbatim text available to us sits on a mirror stamped 2014 while the section’s own history line shows three later amendments, so we do not quote it as current text. Indiana’s official host is a client-rendered application no fetcher can execute; its answer rests on the same reading applied elsewhere.

This page sells nothing and links to no filing service. Moving an LLC is a filing-desk task with a statutory answer, and the answer is either in your two states’ codes or it is not.

Sources

Every row on this page is statutory text. No formation service, no registered-agent marketing page and no aggregator is cited anywhere in this cluster — those are the only publishers of the competing versions.