Homebuilt tax writeoff

[[email protected]]

So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
purchases.
Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
completed
and registered?

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
> So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
> purchases.
> Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
> completed
> and registered?
>

None of the above.


First, the writeoff is only for business expenses. Are you going to
use it for business purposes.

But notwithstanding that, the bonus depreciation requires you to
actually PUT THE EQUIPMENT INTO SERVICE before the cut off date.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
> purchases.
> Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
> completed
> and registered?
>

Business use of a homebuilt is rather limited, so the rest of the questions
are moot. Still, assuming you could find a business use, it is when the
airplane is placed in service.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:05:11 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
>> purchases.
>> Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
>> completed
>> and registered?
>
>Business use of a homebuilt is rather limited, so the rest of the questions
>are moot. Still, assuming you could find a business use, it is when the
>airplane is placed in service.

Have to admit I've wondered whether I could write off the cost of a kit if I
wrote a series of articles about its construction. The amount one would make on
the articles is probably quite a bit less than the kit and engine would cost,
but one could avoid IRS trouble with careful planning.

The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years. Buy the kit in year
one and take a loss. Claim a profit from the articles written in years two and
three. Buy the engine in year four and take a loss. Claim a profit in year
five from the completion articles, and more profit in year six from articles
related to test-flying.

That is, if you can get any flying in while playing a seven-year game of
rock-hockey at Leavenworth for tax evasion. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

RobertR237 wrote:

>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>>So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
>>>purchases.
>>>Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
>>>completed
>>>and registered?
>>>
>>
>>Business use of a homebuilt is rather limited, so the rest of the questions
>>are moot. Still, assuming you could find a business use, it is when the
>>airplane is placed in service.
>>
>
>
> You could write it off for business if you were using it to commute on business
> but look for a hardnosed audit.

What do you mean, commute on business? If you mean commuting to work,
then that doesn't count. If you meaning flying for business purposes,
that isn't called commuting.

Matt

[[email protected]]

I am self employed and from all these comments, the least I see is
that I can use it for business transportation - just like travel
expense deduction on a car. If I claim no more deduction than
equivalent airlines expenses I don't see how IRS would object. I use
about 5gal/hr at 125kts IAS in my SQ2000 canard which can cruise even
faster at higher altitudes. Considering straight line advantage over
autos and waiting period at airports the fuel expenses are as good
compared to car and cheaper than airlines - and I already got the
bird.
-----------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:05:11 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>.......
> Have to admit I've wondered whether I could write off the cost of a
kit if I
> wrote a series of articles about its construction. The amount one
would make on
> the articles is probably quite a bit less than the kit and engine
would cost,
> but one could avoid IRS trouble with careful planning.
>
> The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years. Buy the
kit in year
> one and take a loss. Claim a profit from the articles written in
years two and
> three. Buy the engine in year four and take a loss. Claim a profit
in year
> five from the completion articles, and more profit in year six from
articles
> related to test-flying.
>
> That is, if you can get any flying in while playing a seven-year game
of
> rock-hockey at Leavenworth for tax evasion. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Don Hammer]

>So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
>purchases.
>Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
>completed
>and registered?

If you are talking about the accelerated depreciation deal, you have
to purchase or upgrade an aircraft to the tune of $200K before Jan 1,
04 and have it in service during '05. Can you use an experimental
aircraft commercially?

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years.

This is no longer true. The IRS lost a series of court cases on this one,
most notably because huge corporations such as Amazon.com, airlines, and
investment real estate would have been treated as hobby losses. Going after
only small businesses was unconstitutional under the equal protection
clause. Now the IRS uses other tests to determine if an entity is a
business.

Basically, you must demonstrate that the entity has "the trappings" of a
business and is operated like a business; that is, the business should have
its own bank accounts, pay its employees, charge for its services, have a
business address, be registered as a business under local laws, pay business
taxes, not mix business expenses with personal expenses, etc.

So, yes. If you bought a kit for the purpose of writing a book about
assembling it, the kit would probably be deductible if you actually wrote
and published a book and did all the other stuff. You should get a good tax
lawyer or accountant to set it up for you and make sure all your t's and i's
are crossed and dotted.

[C J Campbell]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
...
>
> >So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
> >purchases.
> >Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
> >completed
> >and registered?
>
> If you are talking about the accelerated depreciation deal, you have
> to purchase or upgrade an aircraft to the tune of $200K before Jan 1,
> 04 and have it in service during '05. Can you use an experimental
> aircraft commercially?

In theory. Some other countries allow it, for example. It is also fairly
well accepted to use ultralights for commercial photography and filmmaking.
But the exceptions to the rule are few and far between.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> I am self employed and from all these comments, the least I see is
> that I can use it for business transportation - just like travel
> expense deduction on a car. If I claim no more deduction than
> equivalent airlines expenses I don't see how IRS would object. I use
> about 5gal/hr at 125kts IAS in my SQ2000 canard which can cruise even
> faster at higher altitudes. Considering straight line advantage over
> autos and waiting period at airports the fuel expenses are as good
> compared to car and cheaper than airlines - and I already got the
> bird.

Last I knew, you had to use actual expenses, not an "equivalent"
expense. The only exception is road vehicles which have the mileage
based deduction to simplify things. I don't recall ever reading a
similar arrangement for aircraft so I believe you would have to track
actual expenses pro rated to your business use vs. personal use.
Definitely a question to pose to a good tax accountant or lawyer before
filing your return.


Matt

[TaxSrv]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> > The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years.
>
> This is no longer true. The IRS lost a series of court cases on this
one,
> most notably because huge corporations such as Amazon.com, airlines,
and
> investment real estate would have been treated as hobby losses.
Going after
> only small businesses was unconstitutional under the equal
protection
> clause. Now the IRS uses other tests to determine if an entity is a
> business.
>

I've been in tax practice for 40 yrs now. Sorry, but all of the above
is a complete fabrication.

Fred F.

[C J Campbell]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > > The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years.
> >
> > This is no longer true. The IRS lost a series of court cases on this
> one,
> > most notably because huge corporations such as Amazon.com, airlines,
> and
> > investment real estate would have been treated as hobby losses.
> Going after
> > only small businesses was unconstitutional under the equal
> protection
> > clause. Now the IRS uses other tests to determine if an entity is a
> > business.
> >
>
> I've been in tax practice for 40 yrs now. Sorry, but all of the above
> is a complete fabrication.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I also have been in tax
practice for over 40 years.

[C J Campbell]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > > The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years.
> >
> > This is no longer true. The IRS lost a series of court cases on this
> one,
> > most notably because huge corporations such as Amazon.com, airlines,
> and
> > investment real estate would have been treated as hobby losses.
> Going after
> > only small businesses was unconstitutional under the equal
> protection
> > clause. Now the IRS uses other tests to determine if an entity is a
> > business.
> >
>
> I've been in tax practice for 40 yrs now. Sorry, but all of the above
> is a complete fabrication.

I should expand a little on my explanation. IRC 183 says that any activity
that makes a profit 3 out of 5 years is presumed to be a for profit venture.
However, this rule does not determine whether the activity is for profit; it
basically is a safe haven which says that if you do this you are presumed to
be in business for a profit. This is different than years ago when it was
pretty much presumed that if you did not make a profit 3 out of 5 years then
you were not engaged in a profit-making venture.

If the activity does not make a profit 3 out of 5 years, then the IRS uses
other rules to determine whether you are engaged in a business for profit.

I am not sure what you are claiming is a fabrication. Are you saying that
Amazon.com and real estate tax shelters would not fail the 3 out of 5 test?
Are you suggesting that the rules for taxpayers are different on the basis
of size of the business? Are you telling me that the IRS wins in court using
the 3 out of 5 test as the sole basis for determining whether the business
is for profit? Because if you are saying these things, then what you are
saying is a complete fabrication.

It is pretty easy to dismiss a complex issue by saying it is "a complete
fabrication" without backing it up with any evidence and while using an
anonymous handle. I seriously question whether you have been in tax practice
for any time at all, let alone 40 years, or you would know better than to
make such sweeping generalizations. Unless you are an IRS auditor, of
course.

Bottom line is that if you can establish a profit motive for your business,
then the 3 out of 5 year rule (or 2 out of 7 in some cases) does not apply.

[Mark Smith]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > > > The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years.
> > >
> > > This is no longer true. The IRS lost a series of court cases on this
> > one,
> > > most notably because huge corporations such as Amazon.com, airlines,
> > and
> > > investment real estate would have been treated as hobby losses.
> > Going after
> > > only small businesses was unconstitutional under the equal
> > protection
> > > clause. Now the IRS uses other tests to determine if an entity is a
> > > business.
> > >
> >
> > I've been in tax practice for 40 yrs now. Sorry, but all of the above
> > is a complete fabrication.
>
> I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I also have been in tax
> practice for over 40 years.

I've been in 'tax preparation' for more years than either of you.

Never been audited, but don't deduct stupid stuff that gets a flag on my
returns either.

If I ever get audited, I will learn more about the IRS than the auditor
will learn about me, for sure.
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351

http://www.trikite.com

[C J Campbell]

"Mark Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Never been audited, but don't deduct stupid stuff that gets a flag on my
> returns either.

If you never get audited, then a good argument can be made that you are way
too conservative.

[TaxSrv]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> ...
> I am not sure what you are claiming is a fabrication. Are you
saying that
> Amazon.com and real estate tax shelters would not fail the 3 out of
5 test?
> ....

Pure summary, assuming all this is inappropriate for the NG. Hobby
loss rules do not apply to "C" corporations like Amazon or the
airlines. "Equal protection" arguments don't apply to noncriminal tax
issues, as Congress can allow a tax benefit, or deny a benefit, for
makers of widgets, but not gadgets. It can creep into tax-exempt org
issues, though. The practical aspects of real-life hobby loss issues
tend to render the 3/5 test moot. Recent developments in the shift of
burden of proof in Tax Court and reimbursement of representational
fees renders even the "rebuttable presumption" rather moot. IOW, it's
all a pure factual question, whether the losing, alleged business
passes the basic sniff test for hobbies.

> Unless you are an IRS auditor, of course....

Formerly, but mere Auditor hell. :-) Many yrs in technical,
managerial, and training matters; civil and criminal litigation.

Reg,
Fred F.

[RobertR237]

>
>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>>So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
>>>>purchases.
>>>>Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
>>>>completed
>>>>and registered?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Business use of a homebuilt is rather limited, so the rest of the questions
>>>are moot. Still, assuming you could find a business use, it is when the
>>>airplane is placed in service.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You could write it off for business if you were using it to commute on
>business
>> but look for a hardnosed audit.
>
>What do you mean, commute on business? If you mean commuting to work,
>then that doesn't count. If you meaning flying for business purposes,
>that isn't called commuting.
>
>Matt

I know of several people who "commute" to work using their planes. It doesn't
have to mean that you have an office job that you commute to, I could have used
a plane to commute to work in Dallas from Houston for the last years and could
have written off the expenses as ligitimate business expense since the distance
is over the 50 mile limit.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[TaxSrv]

"RobertR237" wrote
> I know of several people who "commute" to work using their planes.
It doesn't
> have to mean that you have an office job that you commute to, I
could have used
> a plane to commute to work in Dallas from Houston for the last years
and could
> have written off the expenses as ligitimate business expense since
the distance
> is over the 50 mile limit.
>

Whoa there, there's no 50-mile test for personal commuting vs.
deductible travel. Sounds like confusion with the 50-mile test for
moving expenses. There are rules for temporary business travel and
they do not involve distance at all, but even there, doing so by
private aircraft is subject to a "personal lark" test enunciated in a
Tax Court case long ago and it still stands.

Fred F.

[C J Campbell]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > ...
> > I am not sure what you are claiming is a fabrication. Are you
> saying that
> > Amazon.com and real estate tax shelters would not fail the 3 out of
> 5 test?
> > ....
>
> Pure summary, assuming all this is inappropriate for the NG. Hobby
> loss rules do not apply to "C" corporations like Amazon or the
> airlines. "Equal protection" arguments don't apply to noncriminal tax
> issues, as Congress can allow a tax benefit, or deny a benefit, for
> makers of widgets, but not gadgets. It can creep into tax-exempt org
> issues, though. The practical aspects of real-life hobby loss issues
> tend to render the 3/5 test moot. Recent developments in the shift of
> burden of proof in Tax Court and reimbursement of representational
> fees renders even the "rebuttable presumption" rather moot. IOW, it's
> all a pure factual question, whether the losing, alleged business
> passes the basic sniff test for hobbies.
>
> > Unless you are an IRS auditor, of course....
>
> Formerly, but mere Auditor hell. :-) Many yrs in technical,
> managerial, and training matters; civil and criminal litigation.

OK, I think we are on the same page, then. There is nothing preventing Ron
from setting up a "C" corp. Equal protection arguments do require that a law
or regulation be applied to everyone the same way. Thus, if profitability 3
out of 5 years presumes a business for profit, then it has to be applied to
everyone that way unless some exception is spelled out in the code, which
there isn't. Thus, the law can apply to widget makers or gadget makers, but
it applies equally to both unless Congress specifically says it applies only
to one or the other.

And my point is that the 3/5 test is irrelevant for almost all practical
purposes.

My own philosophy is: if there were no taxes would somebody do this as a
business? If yes, then the IRS is unlikely to have any problem with it,
either.

My main point is that neither Ron nor anybody else should base a business
decision simply on whether it passes some IRS rule which is probably
irrelevant anyway. You should make business decisions on the basis of
whether they are good business. If you do that then the IRS is nearly always
going to fall in line with what you want to do.

[C J Campbell]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> Whoa there, there's no 50-mile test for personal commuting vs.
> deductible travel. Sounds like confusion with the 50-mile test for
> moving expenses. There are rules for temporary business travel and
> they do not involve distance at all, but even there, doing so by
> private aircraft is subject to a "personal lark" test enunciated in a
> Tax Court case long ago and it still stands.

You just tell 'em "It's not a lark, its a Cardinal." :-)

[TaxSrv]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
>
> OK, I think we are on the same page, then.
> There is nothing preventing Ron
> from setting up a "C" corp.

A C Corp is of no tax benefit for an activity which nets out losses
over the years. That's why Congress didn't include them in the hobby
loss rules. Nobody ever did it for something which could be viewed as
a hobby, nor ever would.

> Equal protection arguments do require that a law
> or regulation be applied to everyone the same way.

Cite a case where IRS lost on those grounds, other than a criminal
case, and rarely even there.

> Thus, if profitability 3 out of 5 years presumes a business for
profit,
> then it has to be applied to everyone that way unless some exception
> is spelled out in the code, which there isn't.

Because there needn't be. Your premise doesn't describe real-life
litigation on this issue, nor does it reflect the practical effect of
Regulations under section 183.

Fred F.

[Matt Whiting]

TaxSrv wrote:

> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>
>>>The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years.
>>
>>This is no longer true. The IRS lost a series of court cases on this
>
> one,
>
>>most notably because huge corporations such as Amazon.com, airlines,
>
> and
>
>>investment real estate would have been treated as hobby losses.
>
> Going after
>
>>only small businesses was unconstitutional under the equal
>
> protection
>
>>clause. Now the IRS uses other tests to determine if an entity is a
>>business.
>>
>
>
> I've been in tax practice for 40 yrs now. Sorry, but all of the above
> is a complete fabrication.
>
> Fred F.
>

What is the current reality then?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Mark Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Never been audited, but don't deduct stupid stuff that gets a flag on my
>>returns either.
>
>
> If you never get audited, then a good argument can be made that you are way
> too conservative.

Yes, that was my thought also. I haven't been audited yet either, but
I'm not shy about taking deductions that I believe I'm entitled to take.
I get a couple of "flags" every year from my tax prep software that
say I'm taking deductions that are well above the national average in a
couple of categories, however, I believe they are legitmate based on my
understanding of the tax law so I take them.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RobertR237 wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
>>>>>purchases.
>>>>>Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
>>>>>completed
>>>>>and registered?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Business use of a homebuilt is rather limited, so the rest of the questions
>>>>are moot. Still, assuming you could find a business use, it is when the
>>>>airplane is placed in service.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You could write it off for business if you were using it to commute on
>>
>>business
>>
>>>but look for a hardnosed audit.
>>
>>What do you mean, commute on business? If you mean commuting to work,
>>then that doesn't count. If you meaning flying for business purposes,
>>that isn't called commuting.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I know of several people who "commute" to work using their planes. It doesn't
> have to mean that you have an office job that you commute to, I could have used
> a plane to commute to work in Dallas from Houston for the last years and could
> have written off the expenses as ligitimate business expense since the distance
> is over the 50 mile limit.

What 50 mile limit? I've never read or heard about any limit for
commuting to work. Can you reference the tax code section that allows this?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"C J Campbell" wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>
>> > I am not sure what you are claiming is a fabrication. Are you
>>saying that
>>
>>>Amazon.com and real estate tax shelters would not fail the 3 out of
>>
>>5 test?
>>
>>>....
>>
>>Pure summary, assuming all this is inappropriate for the NG. Hobby
>>loss rules do not apply to "C" corporations like Amazon or the
>>airlines. "Equal protection" arguments don't apply to noncriminal tax
>>issues, as Congress can allow a tax benefit, or deny a benefit, for
>>makers of widgets, but not gadgets. It can creep into tax-exempt org
>>issues, though. The practical aspects of real-life hobby loss issues
>>tend to render the 3/5 test moot. Recent developments in the shift of
>>burden of proof in Tax Court and reimbursement of representational
>>fees renders even the "rebuttable presumption" rather moot. IOW, it's
>>all a pure factual question, whether the losing, alleged business
>>passes the basic sniff test for hobbies.
>>
>>
>>>Unless you are an IRS auditor, of course....
>>
>>Formerly, but mere Auditor hell. :-) Many yrs in technical,
>>managerial, and training matters; civil and criminal litigation.
>
>
> OK, I think we are on the same page, then. There is nothing preventing Ron
> from setting up a "C" corp. Equal protection arguments do require that a law
> or regulation be applied to everyone the same way. Thus, if profitability 3
> out of 5 years presumes a business for profit, then it has to be applied to
> everyone that way unless some exception is spelled out in the code, which
> there isn't. Thus, the law can apply to widget makers or gadget makers, but
> it applies equally to both unless Congress specifically says it applies only
> to one or the other.
>
> And my point is that the 3/5 test is irrelevant for almost all practical
> purposes.
>
> My own philosophy is: if there were no taxes would somebody do this as a
> business? If yes, then the IRS is unlikely to have any problem with it,
> either.
>
> My main point is that neither Ron nor anybody else should base a business
> decision simply on whether it passes some IRS rule which is probably
> irrelevant anyway. You should make business decisions on the basis of
> whether they are good business. If you do that then the IRS is nearly always
> going to fall in line with what you want to do.

If you truly make good business decisions, then you'll likely make a
profit and won't have to worry about this issue! :-)

Matt

[Roger]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:16:22 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The IRS wants to see a profit in three out of five years.
>
When I was in business you had to be careful about write offs. They
are a double edged sword.

If you write it off you have to pay taxes on the income from selling
it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[RobertR237]

>
>RobertR237 wrote:
>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
>>>>>>purchases.
>>>>>>Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
>>>>>>completed
>>>>>>and registered?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Business use of a homebuilt is rather limited, so the rest of the
>questions
>>>>>are moot. Still, assuming you could find a business use, it is when the
>>>>>airplane is placed in service.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You could write it off for business if you were using it to commute on
>>>
>>>business
>>>
>>>>but look for a hardnosed audit.
>>>
>>>What do you mean, commute on business? If you mean commuting to work,
>>>then that doesn't count. If you meaning flying for business purposes,
>>>that isn't called commuting.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> I know of several people who "commute" to work using their planes. It
>doesn't
>> have to mean that you have an office job that you commute to, I could have
>used
>> a plane to commute to work in Dallas from Houston for the last years and
>could
>> have written off the expenses as ligitimate business expense since the
>distance
>> is over the 50 mile limit.
>
>What 50 mile limit? I've never read or heard about any limit for
>commuting to work. Can you reference the tax code section that allows this?
>
>Matt

Sorry, you are right, I was confusing a moving expense limit.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Matt Whiting]

RobertR237 wrote:

>>RobertR237 wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So much has been said about tax writeoff for certified new plane
>>>>>>>purchases.
>>>>>>>Any possibility for homebuilts? When the kit is purchased? When
>>>>>>>completed
>>>>>>>and registered?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Business use of a homebuilt is rather limited, so the rest of the
>>
>>questions
>>
>>>>>>are moot. Still, assuming you could find a business use, it is when the
>>>>>>airplane is placed in service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You could write it off for business if you were using it to commute on
>>>>
>>>>business
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>but look for a hardnosed audit.
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean, commute on business? If you mean commuting to work,
>>>>then that doesn't count. If you meaning flying for business purposes,
>>>>that isn't called commuting.
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>I know of several people who "commute" to work using their planes. It
>>
>>doesn't
>>
>>>have to mean that you have an office job that you commute to, I could have
>>
>>used
>>
>>>a plane to commute to work in Dallas from Houston for the last years and
>>
>>could
>>
>>>have written off the expenses as ligitimate business expense since the
>>
>>distance
>>
>>>is over the 50 mile limit.
>>
>>What 50 mile limit? I've never read or heard about any limit for
>>commuting to work. Can you reference the tax code section that allows this?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Sorry, you are right, I was confusing a moving expense limit.

Bummer. You had me salivating there for a minute! :-)
I was hoping there was some deep, dark exception in the tax code that I
wasn't aware of...

Matt