Can I bill my airplane travel expenses to a client?

[Michael 182]

I have a PPL, no commercial. I travel for my consulting busines, which I
own. Can I bill my client some reasonable rate for travel expenses when I
use my plane? I am not using the plane to generate income, it is tangential
to my business, which happens to be technology litigation consulting.

The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to if
I got the simplest level of a commercial license?

[Mike Rapoport]

Yes.

Mike
MU-2


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:rRwWa.42484$o%2.21901@sccrnsc02...
> I have a PPL, no commercial. I travel for my consulting busines, which I
> own. Can I bill my client some reasonable rate for travel expenses when I
> use my plane? I am not using the plane to generate income, it is
tangential
> to my business, which happens to be technology litigation consulting.
>
> The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to
if
> I got the simplest level of a commercial license?
>
>

[Aloft]

Your local FSDO is probably the best place to ask this question, but
applying the same logic that the FAA has recently applied to CAP pilots (who
are in a marginally similar situation, their "client" being the federal
government), I think they'd say that as a private pilot, you can be
reimbursed for your flying expenses, OR log the flight time, but not both.
In the FAA's twisted mind, free flight time amounts to compensation, which
is verboten for a private pilot. CAP pilots are reimbursed after-the-fact
for mission flying expenses, just as you're seeking, and that's how the FAA
ruled, at least where private pilots are concerned.

If nothing else, you should be able to deduct it from your taxes as a
business expense.


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:rRwWa.42484$o%2.21901@sccrnsc02...
> I have a PPL, no commercial. I travel for my consulting busines, which I
> own. Can I bill my client some reasonable rate for travel expenses when I
> use my plane? I am not using the plane to generate income, it is
tangential
> to my business, which happens to be technology litigation consulting.
>
> The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to
if
> I got the simplest level of a commercial license?
>
>

[Neil Gould]

Hi,

"Aloft" > wrote:
> Your local FSDO is probably the best place to ask this question, but
> applying the same logic that the FAA has recently applied to CAP pilots
(who
> are in a marginally similar situation, their "client" being the federal
> government), I think they'd say that as a private pilot, you can be
> reimbursed for your flying expenses, OR log the flight time, but not
both.
> In the FAA's twisted mind, free flight time amounts to compensation,
which
> is verboten for a private pilot. CAP pilots are reimbursed
after-the-fact
> for mission flying expenses, just as you're seeking, and that's how the
FAA
> ruled, at least where private pilots are concerned.
>
Uh... are you sure about all this? It makes no sense that log time and the
expense of flying are in any way associated. Beyond that, the FARs have
some information about being compensated, and make no mention of logging
flight time. The FARs state that a PP *can* be compensated for flight
expenses as long as the flight activity is unrelated to the work activity,
e.g. the flight is simply a means of transportation to the work. CAP is
not similar, in that the flight activity is directly related to the reason
for compensation; you wouldn't be flying if it weren't for the request to
do so, as opposed to being peripheral to the activity. This is more
similar to being a pilot for an aerial photographer. In this situation,
compensation to PPs is in violation of the FARs.

> If nothing else, you should be able to deduct it from your taxes as a
> business expense.
>
This can be done. In the US, the IRS has instructions for such deductions.

Neil

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 09:15:46 -0400, "Jack Wynn Jr" >
wrote:

>You absolutely cannot MAKE any money from it
>unless your a commercial rated pilot. In other words, if the total cost of
>flight A was $129.38 and your client wrote you a check for $129.38 then your
>legal. But if he mistakenly wrote it for $129.39 then your illegal.
>Unless you have a commercial cert.

That is absolutely NOT the case in the situation cited.

There are specific regulations allowing what the OP proposed.

For example:

======================
61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
compensation or hire.
=====================

Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the business
is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
situation in which you can be compensated as a pilot.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Tony Cox]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:rRwWa.42484$o%2.21901@sccrnsc02...
> I have a PPL, no commercial. I travel for my consulting busines, which I
> own. Can I bill my client some reasonable rate for travel expenses when I
> use my plane? I am not using the plane to generate income, it is
tangential
> to my business, which happens to be technology litigation consulting.
>

I believe the answer is yes, since travel is incidental. Just
like a car.

But to avoid any possibility of some over-zealous FAA wallah
making your life a misery over the 'compensation' issue, try
this. Bump up your hourly rate to cover incidental travel expenses,
don't bother to bill your client at all for travel, and then take the
standard IRS airplane mileage as a business deduction. Can't
find the link right now, but I believe it is presently $0.96/mile.

It doesn't hurt to fill the plane with computers/books & take a
few pictures to prove later (if necessary) that private airplane
transport made sound economic sense for this particular client.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Michael 182 wrote:
> I have a PPL, no commercial. I travel for my consulting busines, which I
> own. Can I bill my client some reasonable rate for travel expenses when I
> use my plane? I am not using the plane to generate income, it is tangential
> to my business, which happens to be technology litigation consulting.

Michael,

Your best bet is probably to run this question by AOPA and your
accountant.

In contrast to some other responses on this thread, I don't think
the FAA cares (I'm assuming it's just you flying, and not you putting
your clients in the plane and flying them to another locale).
I think it's between you, the client and (if tax issues are
involved) possibly the IRS.

I think if you bill the client a rate commensurate with gov't
milage for driving, or with a commercial airline ticket purchased
on the same time scale, no one will look twice, neither your
client nor the IRS nor the FAA.

I think if your actual flight expenses are significantly higher
than driving or commercial flight, the client might object if you
bill them for the whole thing, but that's between you and the client.

The FAA cares deeply that private pilots not "hold forth" to the
public to provide transportation. Thus the rules that the pilot
can only be reimbursed for certain specified actual expenses such
as fuel and oil, or rental fees, and even then only a pro-rated
share with the pilot paying his part, and that even receiving
logged time can be construed as "compensation". And the flight
must meet other tests, such as you having reasons of your own
to travel to your destination, not going there simply to transport
others.

But if it's just you in the plane, I don't think the FAA cares
how you're funding your "flight addiction": working 9-to-5,
billing the client for reasonable transportation expenses,
inherited wealth, whatever.

> The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to if
> I got the simplest level of a commercial license?

The commercial license would change the issues if you are flying
others, but I don't think it's relevant if the question is you
traveling on business.

Good luck,
Sydney

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:27:28 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

>The commercial license would change the issues if you are flying
>others, but I don't think it's relevant if the question is you
>traveling on business.

hm. And if he goes for the commercial to have all the possible problems out
of the way (or because FAA demands a CPL for this situation), can he then
deduct the expenses for the training?

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> hm. And if he goes for the commercial to have all the possible problems out
> of the way (or because FAA demands a CPL for this situation), can he then
> deduct the expenses for the training?

No. The education is not required for the job.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Edward Todd]

>
> > The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to if
> > I got the simplest level of a commercial license?
>
> The commercial license would change the issues if you are flying
> others,..


Not if its just the "simplest" commercial as he asked. Carrying others
ing:s country would also require an instrument rating.

Edward

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:48:23 GMT, "Michael 182"
> wrote:

>I have a PPL, no commercial. I travel for my consulting busines, which I
>own. Can I bill my client some reasonable rate for travel expenses when I
>use my plane? I am not using the plane to generate income, it is tangential
>to my business, which happens to be technology litigation consulting.
>
>The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to if
>I got the simplest level of a commercial license?
>

Since there seems to be a fair amount of misinformation, let me repeat my
response to another poster (and concur with Mike Rapoport's early
response):

======================
61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
compensation or hire.
=====================

Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the business
is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
situation in which you can be compensated as a private pilot.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:03:24 -0400, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
>Martin Hotze wrote:
>>
>> hm. And if he goes for the commercial to have all the possible problems out
>> of the way (or because FAA demands a CPL for this situation), can he then
>> deduct the expenses for the training?
>
>No. The education is not required for the job.


hm, my cell phone is not really a requirement for the job, but it helps
doing it - I can deduct it. So, reaching clients easier, quicker, .... also
helps - maybe this qualifies for deducting, too.

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

[Mike Rapoport]

Your cell phone is not education or training. You can deduct education and
training that relate to your current job but not for a new job. So training
for the instrument rating would be deductible for a pilot who uses an
airplane for business.travel. Training for a commercial certificate would
not be deductible since that is training for a different occupation. If
someone is a commercial pilot, then training for the ATP would be
deductible.

Mike
MU-2


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:03:24 -0400, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Martin Hotze wrote:
> >>
> >> hm. And if he goes for the commercial to have all the possible problems
out
> >> of the way (or because FAA demands a CPL for this situation), can he
then
> >> deduct the expenses for the training?
> >
> >No. The education is not required for the job.
>
>
> hm, my cell phone is not really a requirement for the job, but it helps
> doing it - I can deduct it. So, reaching clients easier, quicker, ....
also
> helps - maybe this qualifies for deducting, too.
>
> #m
>
> --
> http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
> Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/
>
> Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Edward Todd wrote:
>>>The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to if
>>>I got the simplest level of a commercial license?

>>The commercial license would change the issues if you are flying
>>others,..

> Not if its just the "simplest" commercial as he asked. Carrying others
> ing:s country would also require an instrument rating.

Well, if you wish to get picky:
Depends upon how far from the departure airport they're traveling
and whether it's day or night. If it's day, and a short hop,
it's fine.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Newps]

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:27:28 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>
>
>>The commercial license would change the issues if you are flying
>>others, but I don't think it's relevant if the question is you
>>traveling on business.

You better have commercial insurance on the plane too.

[Newps]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Your cell phone is not education or training. You can deduct education and
> training that relate to your current job but not for a new job. So training
> for the instrument rating would be deductible for a pilot who uses an
> airplane for business.travel.

I deducted all my training because I'm a controller. Wrote off my
handheld GPS too, although I just buried that in the "training" part.
What a country.

[Tony Cox]

"Fred Fillinger" > wrote in message
...
> > ...and then take the
> > standard IRS airplane mileage as a business deduction. Can't
> > find the link right now, but I believe it is presently $0.96/mile.
>
> The IRS has never established optional mileage allowances for aircraft.
> It is necessary to compute the actual costs for the portion allocable
> to business use.
>

You are right. I just checked my link & it wasn't the IRS site.

However, the GSA *does* specify a reimbersement rate for
private aircraft. That rate is currently 95.5 cents per (statute) mile.
This applies to use of private vehicles on government business.
Their reimbursement rate for autos is exactly what the IRS allows
as a deduction, so it would seem to be quite a reasonable deduction
to take. Here's the link (sorry about the wrap) :--

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/policies_content.jsp?contentOID=115105&contentType=1006

I'll run it through my CPA when I next see her.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Pat Thronson]

"61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:"



I know this is a little off track on this thread but this brings up a
question that has been bugging me for 14 years now,



My accountant will not allow me to write off a plane to travel to the office
1,200 miles distance from my home, instead of a long 2 day drive. Although I
believe it is to get to work on a more "timely and rested manner" He does
give the mileage on my truck but wont budge on the plane. My company ( I am
8.5 % part owner) will not pay for the travel and especially the flight.
Does anybody know if I could write off the plane before actually making
money for the company or is he telling the truth??



Pat Thronson PP ASEL

Babb, MT

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:r9VWa.50399$uu5.5201@sccrnsc04...
> I deducted all my training because I'm a controller. Wrote off my
> handheld GPS too, although I just buried that in the "training" part.
> What a country.

As long as you don't get audited, you can deduct whatever you like.

That doesn't mean it's legal though.

Pete

[Tom S.]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:48:23 GMT, "Michael 182"
> > wrote:
>
> >I have a PPL, no commercial. I travel for my consulting busines, which I
> >own. Can I bill my client some reasonable rate for travel expenses when I
> >use my plane? I am not using the plane to generate income, it is
tangential
> >to my business, which happens to be technology litigation consulting.
> >
> >The followup question is, if I can't bill the expense, would I be able to
if
> >I got the simplest level of a commercial license?
> >
>
> Since there seems to be a fair amount of misinformation, let me repeat my
> response to another poster (and concur with Mike Rapoport's early
> response):
>
> ======================
> 61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
> command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
>
> (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
> and
> (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
> compensation or hire.
> =====================
>
> Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the business
> is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
> situation in which you can be compensated as a private pilot.

Yes, but he's not asking for compensation for the flight, only if he can
bill for the direct/indirect costs for the flight.

For example: if he calculates his plane costs $175 per hour to operate with
all direct costs and reserves (maint, OH, avionics), can he bill that to the
client?

He's not billing the client for HIS compensation (unless his contract allows
him to bill at his normal hourly rate for travel time).

[Michael 182]

First - thanks all for the replies.

I figure it cost me about $130 an hour to fly my '79 TR-182, including
direct and indirect costs. My usual trip to see my client in Phoenix takes
about 8 hours round trip, or $1,040. I can fly economy commercial, and park
my car for about $500. While I'd love to charge my client the difference, I
really can't justify it. On the other hand, I'll happily pay the incremental
$540 out of pocket and have my own first class seat...


Michael



"Tom S." > wrote in message
...

> For example: if he calculates his plane costs $175 per hour to operate
with
> all direct costs and reserves (maint, OH, avionics), can he bill that to
the
> client?
>
> He's not billing the client for HIS compensation (unless his contract
allows
> him to bill at his normal hourly rate for travel time).
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:35:42 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote:

>Yes, but he's not asking for compensation for the flight, only if he can
>bill for the direct/indirect costs for the flight.

First of all, he's not asking that. He's asking "Can I bill my client some
reasonable rate for travel expenses when I use my plane?"

And the answer is "Yes".

There is no prohibition in the FAR's, in the circumstance of using an a/c
for business travel of this sort, for billing for the use of the aircraft.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mike Rapoport]

You can't write off commuting expenses.

Mike
MU-2


"Pat Thronson" > wrote in message
t...
> "61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
> command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:"
>
>
>
> I know this is a little off track on this thread but this brings up a
> question that has been bugging me for 14 years now,
>
>
>
> My accountant will not allow me to write off a plane to travel to the
office
> 1,200 miles distance from my home, instead of a long 2 day drive. Although
I
> believe it is to get to work on a more "timely and rested manner" He does
> give the mileage on my truck but wont budge on the plane. My company ( I
am
> 8.5 % part owner) will not pay for the travel and especially the flight.
> Does anybody know if I could write off the plane before actually making
> money for the company or is he telling the truth??
>
>
>
> Pat Thronson PP ASEL
>
> Babb, MT
>
>
>
>

[Edward Todd]

In article >,
"Tom S." > wrote:


> > Since there seems to be a fair amount of misinformation, let me repeat my
> > response to another poster (and concur with Mike Rapoport's early
> > response):
> >
> > ======================
> > 61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
> > command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
> >
> > (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
> > and
> > (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
> > compensation or hire.
> > =====================
> >
> > Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the business
> > is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
> > situation in which you can be compensated as a private pilot.
>


The key to that is flying "yourself". If you take along your partner to
the business meeting ... you've blown it.

Edward

[Tom S.]

Did I state your question properly?

Tom

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:66YWa.51594$o%2.26023@sccrnsc02...
> First - thanks all for the replies.
>
> I figure it cost me about $130 an hour to fly my '79 TR-182, including
> direct and indirect costs. My usual trip to see my client in Phoenix takes
> about 8 hours round trip, or $1,040. I can fly economy commercial, and
park
> my car for about $500. While I'd love to charge my client the difference,
I
> really can't justify it. On the other hand, I'll happily pay the
incremental
> $540 out of pocket and have my own first class seat...
>
>
> Michael
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > For example: if he calculates his plane costs $175 per hour to operate
> with
> > all direct costs and reserves (maint, OH, avionics), can he bill that to
> the
> > client?
> >
> > He's not billing the client for HIS compensation (unless his contract
> allows
> > him to bill at his normal hourly rate for travel time).
> >
>
>

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Jack Wynn Jr wrote:
> Sure, you can have your client reimburse you for flight expenses. But
> expenses only. Fuel, Aircraft Rental, Landing Fees, special charts, etc
> would all be allowed to be reimbursable by your client.

Jack,

I think you're confusing the FAA regulations for a PPL carrying
passengers, vs. a PPL flying on business which is incidental to
the flight.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Newps wrote:

> Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>> I think if you bill the client a rate commensurate with gov't
>> milage for driving, or with a commercial airline ticket purchased
>> on the same time scale, no one will look twice, neither your
>> client nor the IRS nor the FAA.

> Be careful there. On a short trip, say 150 miles, our local air taxi
> fare will run over $100. You're making pretty good money if you bill
> each client in the plane that amount

If you take a look at what I posted, I'm operating on the assumption
that he's not talking about flying clients -- a different set of issues
-- but rather, being reimbursed for his own travel expenses. If
there are other people in the plane, it's a different set of issues.

If the plane is just his way to get there, it's between Michael and his
clients what sort of travel expenses they're willing to stand him. I
assume his "site visit" fee would go up if he's required to spend 3 hrs
driving someplace he could fly to in 40 minutes. Mine sure would.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 21:12:35 -0500, Edward Todd
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Tom S." > wrote:
>
>
>> > Since there seems to be a fair amount of misinformation, let me repeat my
>> > response to another poster (and concur with Mike Rapoport's early
>> > response):
>> >
>> > ======================
>> > 61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
>> > command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
>> >
>> > (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
>> > and
>> > (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
>> > compensation or hire.
>> > =====================
>> >
>> > Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the business
>> > is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
>> > situation in which you can be compensated as a private pilot.
>>
>
>
>The key to that is flying "yourself". If you take along your partner to
>the business meeting ... you've blown it.
>
>Edward

Edward,

I'm not sure of the answer to that. And even after reviewing the FAQ's on
the FAA web site, I remain confused.

It seems to me that if one is merely carrying a coworker to a business
meeting that the pilot *is also* attending, that the private pilot can be
compensated by his employer. Certainly he can carry passengers that are
NOT co-workers and still be reimbursed:

In addition, the FAQ's state: "...But the FAA in all its past policy
statements and legal interpretations have always taken a very strict
interpretation on § 61.113(b)(1). Previous examples that have been offered
to explain what is meant by ". . . The flight is only incidental to that
business or employment . . .", [i.e., § 61.113(b)(1)] would be where the
holder of private pilot certificate uses the company aircraft for
transportation on an infrequent, non-reoccurring basis, and some of the
other company personnel elect to go along to attend a meeting. The flight
has nothing to do with that business or employment and is just a means of
transportation."

"If a private pilot is conducting a flight that fits into the ". . . flight
is only incidental to that business or employment . . ." exception [i.e.,
paragraph (b)(1) of § 61.113], it is legal for a private pilot to be
reimbursed by his/her employer regardless of whether any other passengers
are carried or not. Thus for example, a wife or husband of a private pilot
may go along on a flight, and in essence get a "free" ride. This kind of
flight [i.e., ". . . flight is only incidental to that business or
employment . . ."] is an exception to the shared expense provisions of
paragraph (c)."

It has always seemed to me that the key is whether or not the pilot is
carrying passengers *for compensation or hire*. If that's not his job, and
the a/c is used only for transportation to a meeting that has nothing to do
with aviation, then under 61.113b he should be able to be compensated (or
reimbursed).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Cub Driver]

>The FARs state that a PP *can* be compensated for flight
>expenses as long as the flight activity is unrelated to the work activity,
>e.g. the flight is simply a means of transportation to the work.

Amazing. I can be paid for flying to Biddeford to photograph a
wedding, but not for photographing a house from the air!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>It doesn't hurt to fill the plane with computers/books & take a
>few pictures to prove later (if necessary) that private airplane
>transport made sound economic sense for this particular client.
>
Very good advice. The secret to never being audited is to be ready for
an audit, and the secret to being ready for an audit is the ability to
drown Donna Tax Adjuster in paperwork.

One year I had the daybed in my office re-upholstered, and I worried
about how I would explain *that* to Donna. So I had my wife photograph
me writing on a yellow legal pad, lying on the bed with my knees
propped up. (Bad back :) It went into my Current Taxes folder so I
could always pull it out and show it to Donna.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>> hm. And if he goes for the commercial to have all the possible problems out
>> of the way (or because FAA demands a CPL for this situation), can he then
>> deduct the expenses for the training?
>
>No. The education is not required for the job.

The general rule on education is that you can't deduct the expenses of
preparing for a better-paying job, or even for a different job, but
only if the training is required for you to hold your present job. One
of those nutty rules that come from splitting hairs.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>hm, my cell phone is not really a requirement for the job, but it helps
>doing it - I can deduct it. So, reaching clients easier, quicker, .... also
>helps - maybe this qualifies for deducting, too.

You can deduct the cost of a cell phone used on business (if it isn't
your only phone!). But you can't deduct the cost of a class that
trains you on how to use your cell phone.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>government), I think they'd say that as a private pilot, you can be
>reimbursed for your flying expenses, OR log the flight time, but not both.

That's the most astonishing thing I've ever read about the FAA. Can it
be true?

Not quite the same situation, but I occasionally fly in connection
with my employment (which is, heh heh, writing about flying for the
most part). I deduct it as a travel expense, meaning that the IRS gets
to share in the cost, which is a kind of reimbursement. And you can be
dang sure I log the time!

(Should I have written that in a public place?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Neil Gould]

Hi,

"Edward Todd" > wrote:
> "Tom S." > wrote:
> > > Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the
business
> > > is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
> > > situation in which you can be compensated as a private pilot.
>
> The key to that is flying "yourself". If you take along your partner to
> the business meeting ... you've blown it.
>
That only becomes a problem if you bill your partner for more than 1/2 of
the expenses for the flight.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Hi,

"Cub Driver" > wrote:
>
> >government), I think they'd say that as a private pilot, you can be
> >reimbursed for your flying expenses, OR log the flight time, but not
both.
>
> That's the most astonishing thing I've ever read about the FAA. Can it
> be true?
>
I've not seen anything in the FARs that suggests that this notion has
merit. As a practical matter, it would be impossible to audit. Perhaps
"Cub Driver" can enlighten us with a reference?

Neil

[Newps]

Teacherjh wrote:

> Not quite. You would then be operating part 135, and your aircraft and such
> would also need to meet part 135 rules. That is, unless you pull the (rather
> transparant) ruse of having the client rent your airplane, and then rent you
> separately to fly it.

And exactly that was the subject this month in one of the magazines
legal columns. Basically if you own the plane and are the pilot you
cannot keep them separate to avoid going the 135 route.
>

[Tom S.]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The FARs state that a PP *can* be compensated for flight
> >expenses as long as the flight activity is unrelated to the work
activity,
> >e.g. the flight is simply a means of transportation to the work.
>
> Amazing. I can be paid for flying to Biddeford to photograph a
> wedding, but not for photographing a house from the air!

Yes. The flying to the wedding is only a matter of getting there, not HOW to
get there. With the photography of the house, the flying is certainly not
"incidental".

[Tom S.]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> hm. And if he goes for the commercial to have all the possible problems
out
> >> of the way (or because FAA demands a CPL for this situation), can he
then
> >> deduct the expenses for the training?
> >
> >No. The education is not required for the job.
>
> The general rule on education is that you can't deduct the expenses of
> preparing for a better-paying job, or even for a different job, but
> only if the training is required for you to hold your present job. One
> of those nutty rules that come from splitting hairs.

Because when they let you train for a _different_ job, they wind up with a
lot of "professional students" who just, somehow, never manage to get into
the new field.

[CarSalesman]

Let's take this to a real world example (me).

I own a car dealership. The car dealership is a corporation, and
owns the aircraft, pays for all costs directly. As a company vehicle,
those costs are expensed as occurred. have owned the same plane
for a long time, so it's long ago depreciated to zero.

I am the only pilot. I have a commercial rating, but I don't think
that's of any consequence on this discussion. Figure I'm like
any other private pilot. I am an employee of the same corporation
that owns the airplane.

The aircraft is used virtually 100% to take me to meetings and
car auctions, or recurrent training. The few times I use it for
personal use, I pay for the variable expenses personally. That may
or may not be enough for the IRS, but would at least show an
attempt to comply, and probably avoid a fine, if not a taxable
perk.

So, up to here, we're mostly OK with the IRS and
totall OK with the FAA.

Now, if another employee goes with me, does that change
anything with the FAA? (it clearly does not with the IRS).
Sometimes another employee of the same corporation will
attend a meeting with me. Sometimes I will take a couple
people with me to an auction. They drive cars back.

Still no problem for the IRS, the business purpose is there, but
does taking another passenger along violate the "incidental"
part of 61.113(b)?

(name with held pending answer to the question!!)



"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 21:12:35 -0500, Edward Todd
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Tom S." > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > Since there seems to be a fair amount of misinformation, let me
repeat my
> >> > response to another poster (and concur with Mike Rapoport's early
> >> > response):
> >> >
> >> > ======================
> >> > 61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as
pilot in
> >> > command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment
if:
> >> >
> >> > (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
> >> > and
> >> > (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
> >> > compensation or hire.
> >> > =====================
> >> >
> >> > Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the
business
> >> > is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
> >> > situation in which you can be compensated as a private pilot.
> >>
> >
> >
> >The key to that is flying "yourself". If you take along your partner to
> >the business meeting ... you've blown it.
> >
> >Edward
>
> Edward,
>
> I'm not sure of the answer to that. And even after reviewing the FAQ's on
> the FAA web site, I remain confused.
>
> It seems to me that if one is merely carrying a coworker to a business
> meeting that the pilot *is also* attending, that the private pilot can be
> compensated by his employer. Certainly he can carry passengers that are
> NOT co-workers and still be reimbursed:
>
> In addition, the FAQ's state: "...But the FAA in all its past policy
> statements and legal interpretations have always taken a very strict
> interpretation on § 61.113(b)(1). Previous examples that have been
offered
> to explain what is meant by ". . . The flight is only incidental to that
> business or employment . . .", [i.e., § 61.113(b)(1)] would be where the
> holder of private pilot certificate uses the company aircraft for
> transportation on an infrequent, non-reoccurring basis, and some of the
> other company personnel elect to go along to attend a meeting. The flight
> has nothing to do with that business or employment and is just a means of
> transportation."
>
> "If a private pilot is conducting a flight that fits into the ". . .
flight
> is only incidental to that business or employment . . ." exception [i.e.,
> paragraph (b)(1) of § 61.113], it is legal for a private pilot to be
> reimbursed by his/her employer regardless of whether any other passengers
> are carried or not. Thus for example, a wife or husband of a private pilot
> may go along on a flight, and in essence get a "free" ride. This kind of
> flight [i.e., ". . . flight is only incidental to that business or
> employment . . ."] is an exception to the shared expense provisions of
> paragraph (c)."
>
> It has always seemed to me that the key is whether or not the pilot is
> carrying passengers *for compensation or hire*. If that's not his job,
and
> the a/c is used only for transportation to a meeting that has nothing to
do
> with aviation, then under 61.113b he should be able to be compensated (or
> reimbursed).
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 17:56:51 -0700, "CarSalesman" > wrote:

>Still no problem for the IRS, the business purpose is there, but
>does taking another passenger along violate the "incidental"
>part of 61.113(b)?

Not according to John Lynch's FAQ's on the FAA web site.

> ...examples that have been offered to explain what is meant by
> ". . . The flight is only incidental to that
> business or employment . . .", [i.e., § 61.113(b)(1)] would be where the
> holder of private pilot certificate uses the company aircraft for
> transportation on an infrequent, non-reoccurring basis, and some of the
> other company personnel elect to go along to attend a meeting. The flight
> has nothing to do with that business or employment and is just a means of
> transportation."


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

CarSalesman wrote:

> Now, if another employee goes with me, does that change
> anything with the FAA? (it clearly does not with the IRS).
> Sometimes another employee of the same corporation will
> attend a meeting with me. Sometimes I will take a couple
> people with me to an auction. They drive cars back.
>
> Still no problem for the IRS, the business purpose is there, but
> does taking another passenger along violate the "incidental"
> part of 61.113(b)?

I don't think it does, provided:
1) you personally are not receiving compensation for the
flight
2) taking the flight is "optional" for the employees, they
could drive or fly commercial if they wish but choose
to come with you

The reason I think this is true is that the flight is still
"incidental" to the business ie, your business is buying and
selling cars, not buying and selling airplanes or using airplanes
to photograph cars from the air or what-have-you.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Tom S.]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> CarSalesman wrote:
>
> > Now, if another employee goes with me, does that change
> > anything with the FAA? (it clearly does not with the IRS).
> > Sometimes another employee of the same corporation will
> > attend a meeting with me. Sometimes I will take a couple
> > people with me to an auction. They drive cars back.
> >
> > Still no problem for the IRS, the business purpose is there, but
> > does taking another passenger along violate the "incidental"
> > part of 61.113(b)?
>
> I don't think it does, provided:
> 1) you personally are not receiving compensation for the
> flight
> 2) taking the flight is "optional" for the employees, they
> could drive or fly commercial if they wish but choose
> to come with you

Not as long as the "passenger" is not paying some sort of airfare, which is
not likely if the passenger is an employee.
>
> The reason I think this is true is that the flight is still
> "incidental" to the business ie, your business is buying and
> selling cars, not buying and selling airplanes or using airplanes
> to photograph cars from the air or what-have-you.

CMIIW, but the key is if the passenger is paying to go along, and/or, if the
pilot receives compensation for their flying (their employment is contingent
on, rather than incidental to, being a pilot).

The company I'm with (a five man partnership) owns three aircraft, but no
one on staff is a "corporate pilot" (i.e. someone whose sole jobs is
_piloting_). We also have seven company cars and assorted other vehicles.
When you need a car, you ask the receptionist for the keys. So what would be
the difference between the cars and the planes?

[Captain Wubba]

Apparently one 'cleaner' option here is to sell a minimum 'share' (say
10%) in your plane to the company, with a buy-back option clause on
both sides. When the company 'owns' the plane (or even enough to meet
the FAA fractional-ownership guidelines, which I believe are 1/16th,
which I think I saw in their 'fractional ownership' NPRM), any
commercial pilot appropriately rated can fly it for hire. Now many
companies might get a bit hinky because of the liability issues, but
structured correctly this appears to be legal. We have an Aztec based
at our airport which is partly 'owned' by a medical practice in this
manner. One of the MDs owned it, and had his practice 'buy' into it
with a buyout clause for just this reason. I've never asked a lawyer
about this, but the MD says he has, and (knowing this MD) I can't
believe he's lying or mistaken about this.

If I'm wrong, please let me know, because this is something I'd
consider for myself in the future.

Cheers,

Cap


(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >The commercial license would change the issues if you are flying
> >others,
>
> Not quite. You would then be operating part 135, and your aircraft and such
> would also need to meet part 135 rules. That is, unless you pull the (rather
> transparant) ruse of having the client rent your airplane, and then rent you
> separately to fly it.
>
> Jose
>
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Mike Rapoport]

My understanding is that returns are selected for audit and THEN the audit
begins. I don't know how that IRS would select out returns with aircraft
expenses. Aircraft expenses are deducted as "maitenance", "rent", "travel",
"education" and "depreciation". There is no line item for "airplane"
expense. If you return was actually selected for audit, THEN you could
reasonable expect everything including aircraft expenses to be examined, but
I don's see how deducting aircraft expenses would trigger an audit.

The bottom line is that if travel by private aircraft is an "ordinary and
nessesary" expense for your business, then you can (and should) deduct it.

Mike
MU-2


"Greg Faris" > wrote in message
...
> The question may be mostly oriented toward how the FAA will view your
> activity, however we must consider equally how the IRS will view it. In
this
> respect, Ron Rosenfield's posts are of interest, as he has experience with
> this end.
>
> Ron - You make it sound almost rosy. Did the IRS ever disallow any of your
> expenses? Did you deduct all expenses as business expenses - hangar,
> insurance, currency requirement costs etc etc?
>
> Do you feel, as some have said, that aircraft usage/ownership in business
is a
> red flag for IRS audits?
>
> Greg Faris
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 21:12:35 -0500, Edward Todd
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Tom S." > wrote:
>
>
>> > Since there seems to be a fair amount of misinformation, let me repeat my
>> > response to another poster (and concur with Mike Rapoport's early
>> > response):
>> >
>> > ======================
>> > 61.113 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
>> > command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
>> >
>> > (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
>> > and
>> > (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
>> > compensation or hire.
>> > =====================
>> >
>> > Flying yourself to a business meeting, or sales calls, where the business
>> > is essentially unrelated to aviation, is specifically allowed as a
>> > situation in which you can be compensated as a private pilot.
>>
>
>
>The key to that is flying "yourself". If you take along your partner to
>the business meeting ... you've blown it.

Not necessarily.
You can tell him you are going to fly as it will allow you to be home
in time to go play golf and would he like to ride along. then you both
can get in a game. You've invited him and his riding is incidental
the trip.

As always, check with a tax attorney.
Even they don't always agree and the IRS is known to be some what
inconsistent even with their information.

"I think" you will find that in many cases you can shoot photos and
sell them with just the PPL. Again, there are a lot of "it depends".

Just as with reimbursement for travel...Some take it that they can
use the equivalent coach class fare for a deduction. IF you use the
aircraft in business you can do that as a write off in some
conditions, but not as your own plane traveling to a business function
and only if the cost is less than the actual cost of flying your
plane.. There you only get the standard deduction of so many cents
per mile.

Talk to 10 different attorneys and you will probably get 10 varying
answers with the IRS making it 11 (or more)

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Edward