Updated September 3, 2026. Quick answer: Wisconsin permits it, in both directions, under Wis. Stat. § 183.1041; but the operative statute is captioned ‘conversion,’ not ‘domestication,’ even though ch. 183 subch. X also contains an article literally named ‘Domestication’ that does not cover this transaction. Filing is Articles of Conversion with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, filing fee $150. The outbound direction also carries a reciprocity condition: the destination jurisdiction’s law must permit the conversion too.
The statute, and why Wisconsin gets miscounted
§183.1041(1): ‘A domestic limited liability company may convert to another type of entity, either domestic or foreign, pursuant to ss. 183.1041 to 183.1045 and a plan of conversion if the conversion is permitted under the governing law of the converting entity and the governing law that is to apply to the converted entity.’ §183.0102(4t) defines ‘foreign,’ as to an entity, as ‘an entity whose governing law is other than the law of this state’: reaching an LLC organized under any other US state’s law, not only non-US entities. A chapter-wide member-protection restriction also applies: a conversion ‘may not materially increase the current or potential obligations of a member’ without that member’s consent.
What the filing costs
Articles of Conversion (DFI Form Corp1000), filed with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Corporate & Consumer Services. Filing fee $150, optional expedited service +$100, non-refundable. Single filing: the plan of conversion itself is not filed with the state.
That is the entity-law filing fee only. It is not the cost of leaving, and anyone who tells you the cost of leaving Wisconsin is a filing fee is selling something.
The part this page does not answer
The reason people search for this is usually not the filing. It is the tax exposure: what Wisconsin’s own revenue agency does when you leave, whether a final return is due, and whether the state agrees the entity has actually stopped doing business there. Those questions are governed by Wisconsin tax law and administrative practice, not by the entity-law citation above, and this cluster does not source them. We have the entity-law answer at primary and the tax answer not at all.
Two things worth knowing even so, both the general shape rather than a state-specific finding: changing the entity’s state of organization does not by itself end an obligation to register as a foreign LLC anywhere you still do business, and a state’s revenue department is a separate counterparty from its filing office. If you are moving to cut a tax bill, the entity move is the easy half.
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.
What is commonly published about Wisconsin, and why it is wrong
That Wisconsin’s ‘domestication’ statute (Wis. Stat. §§183.1051–183.1055) is the authority for moving an LLC to or from Wisconsin.
Wisconsin has an interstate domestication mechanism, but it is not found by searching for the word ‘domestication’: the actual route is the Conversion article, §§183.1041–183.1045.
Check both ends of the move, not just the destination
A move needs two things to be true: your destination has to let the entity in, and your current state has to let it out. Nine states have no statutory route out, so an LLC formed in one of them cannot domesticate anywhere, however welcoming the destination is. That is where most published advice goes wrong; it checks one end.
| State you would be leaving | Why there is no route out | What the code offers instead |
|---|---|---|
| Delaware | the statute affirmatively limits it | 6 Del. C. § 18-209 |
| Kentucky | nothing in the code permits it | KRS 275.345 to 275.365 |
| Massachusetts | the statute affirmatively limits it | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C, § 59(b) |
| Missouri | nothing in the code permits it | Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 347.127 to 347.135 |
| New Mexico | nothing in the code permits it | NMSA 1978 § 53-19-62 |
| New York | nothing in the code permits it | NY LLC Law § 1001(b), certificate of merger under § 1003 |
| South Carolina | the statute affirmatively limits it | S.C. Code Ann. § 33-44-904 |
| Washington | the statute affirmatively limits it | RCW 25.15.416 to 25.15.431 |
| West Virginia | nothing in the code permits it | W. Va. Code § 31B-9-904, articles of merger under § 31B-9-905 |
Delaware is the surprise on that list and it is not a mistake; see the Delaware page. For the other eight, the substitute is a merger, not a dissolution: form the new entity in the destination state and merge the old one into it. Merger produces a surviving entity rather than a continuation, so it is genuinely not the same thing as domestication, but it keeps far more alive than dissolving does.
The full 51-jurisdiction table is on the domestication states list; the three routes are compared on how to move an LLC to another state.
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.
- Wisconsin: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/183/x/1041. Statutory text, re-read 2026-09-03 from docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/183/x/1041: the same official Wisconsin Legislature source as the dataset.