GA private aircraft business mileage rates

[Paul Lee]

US government allows 99.5 cents per mile for privately owned aircraft
usage for government business.

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=9646&contentType=GSA_BASIC

Is that what one could use for personally owned aircraft in business
related travel?

-------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard www.abri.com/sq2000

[BTIZ]

why do people ask tax related questions on an aviation forum... those are
better asked of your tax man..

BT

"Paul Lee" > wrote in message
om...
> US government allows 99.5 cents per mile for privately owned aircraft
> usage for government business.
>
>
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=9646&contentType=GSA_BASIC
>
> Is that what one could use for personally owned aircraft in business
> related travel?
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard www.abri.com/sq2000

[zatatime]

On 13 May 2004 19:49:06 -0700, (Paul Lee)
wrote:

>US government allows 99.5 cents per mile for privately owned aircraft
>usage for government business.
>
>http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=9646&contentType=GSA_BASIC
>
>Is that what one could use for personally owned aircraft in business
>related travel?
>
>-------------------------------------------
>Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard www.abri.com/sq2000

I'd be very careful with this one. AOPA actually has a kit you can
get outlining previous cases of aircraft use for business and some pit
falls and advantages. What I remember is that the IRS (during an
audit) got quotes on airfares for the time frame in question and
allowed only that much as the right off. The excess was assessed as
taxable with penalties and interest.

There were many other examples on who "did it right" and reasons
others got penalized which I can't remember, but the airfare example
stuck out in my head. My accountant read all the info too, and
strongly advised me to minimize aviation write-offs in my plane. (I
don't run a business that requires frequent local travel).

Good Luck in finding a good angle. It might make it easier for all of
us. Also, thanks for the mileage allowance, I may bounce this off the
accountant and see what he says.

z

[C J Campbell]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'd be very careful with this one. AOPA actually has a kit you can
> get outlining previous cases of aircraft use for business and some pit
> falls and advantages. What I remember is that the IRS (during an
> audit) got quotes on airfares for the time frame in question and
> allowed only that much as the right off. The excess was assessed as
> taxable with penalties and interest.
>

This is an illegal and unreasonable position that has no basis in either the
code or the regs. The IRS would be liable for very stiff penalties and legal
fees if it actually tried to defend this position in court. The courts have
ruled repeatedly that the IRS cannot force people to deduct only what the
least possible cost is.

[zatatime]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:11:00 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I'd be very careful with this one. AOPA actually has a kit you can
>> get outlining previous cases of aircraft use for business and some pit
>> falls and advantages. What I remember is that the IRS (during an
>> audit) got quotes on airfares for the time frame in question and
>> allowed only that much as the right off. The excess was assessed as
>> taxable with penalties and interest.
>>
>
>This is an illegal and unreasonable position that has no basis in either the
>code or the regs. The IRS would be liable for very stiff penalties and legal
>fees if it actually tried to defend this position in court. The courts have
>ruled repeatedly that the IRS cannot force people to deduct only what the
>least possible cost is.
>


I'm not agreeing with what happened, just stating that it did. I
don't remember if it was challenged or not.

z

[C J Campbell]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:11:00 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I'd be very careful with this one. AOPA actually has a kit you can
> >> get outlining previous cases of aircraft use for business and some pit
> >> falls and advantages. What I remember is that the IRS (during an
> >> audit) got quotes on airfares for the time frame in question and
> >> allowed only that much as the right off. The excess was assessed as
> >> taxable with penalties and interest.
> >>
> >
> >This is an illegal and unreasonable position that has no basis in either
the
> >code or the regs. The IRS would be liable for very stiff penalties and
legal
> >fees if it actually tried to defend this position in court. The courts
have
> >ruled repeatedly that the IRS cannot force people to deduct only what the
> >least possible cost is.
> >
>
>
> I'm not agreeing with what happened, just stating that it did. I
> don't remember if it was challenged or not.

It is the sort of thing that might have happened some years ago. Back in
those days, if Congress would not pass a tax law the IRS wanted, then the
IRS would simply write it into the regulations. Or they might simply have an
interpretation of the regulations that was contrary to the law. Since
taxpayers could not file a class action suit against the IRS, the IRS would
generally collect what they wanted -- it was more expensive to sue the
government than the refund was worth.

My father, a senior tax partner for Ernst and Young, spoke about this at a
CPA convention, openly accusing the IRS of 'legislating.' In those days a
CPA would never publicly criticize the IRS. The phone at his office was
ringing even before he left the convention hall. I was studying for the CPA
exams myself at the time and a lot of people asked me about it. The general
feeling was that it was about time somebody said something. It was one of
the first cracks in the wall that kept the IRS from accountability.

Nowadays if the IRS adopts such an unreasonable position the courts can (and
frequently do) order the IRS to pay the claimant's legal fees, as well as
some penalties. Taxpayers are now accorded certain rights under the law,
which they did not have before.

Now, if we could just bring the FAA to the same level of accountability....