LLC ownership of airplane -- another twist

[xyzzy]

There was some discussion of this concept in the newsgroup before,
with the consensus seeming to be that an individual owners get no real
protection putting his personal airplane under corporate or LLC
ownership. And now it turns out he might lose some protection, because
LLC owners are not covered by some states' consumer protection laws,
see:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/883-full.html#195375

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> There was some discussion of this concept in the newsgroup before,
> with the consensus seeming to be that an individual owners get no real
> protection putting his personal airplane under corporate or LLC
> ownership. And now it turns out he might lose some protection, because
> LLC owners are not covered by some states' consumer protection laws,
> see:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/883-full.html#195375
>

Only in Kalifornia (?), would a company that consumes things not be a
consumer.

[xyzzy]

On Jun 11, 10:33 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > There was some discussion of this concept in the newsgroup before,
> > with the consensus seeming to be that an individual owners get no real
> > protection putting his personal airplane under corporate or LLC
> > ownership. And now it turns out he might lose some protection, because
> > LLC owners are not covered by some states' consumer protection laws,
> > see:
>
> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/883-full.html#195375
>
> Only in Kalifornia (?), would a company that consumes things not be a
> consumer.

Do you know for sure that it's only in California?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 11, 10:33 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>> > There was some discussion of this concept in the newsgroup before,
>> > with the consensus seeming to be that an individual owners get no real
>> > protection putting his personal airplane under corporate or LLC
>> > ownership. And now it turns out he might lose some protection, because
>> > LLC owners are not covered by some states' consumer protection laws,
>> > see:
>>
>> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/883-full.html#195375
>>
>> Only in Kalifornia (?), would a company that consumes things not be a
>> consumer.
>
> Do you know for sure that it's only in California?

The (?) indicates...what, to you?

[xyzzy]

On Jun 11, 11:37 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 10:33 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> > wrote:
> >> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >> > There was some discussion of this concept in the newsgroup before,
> >> > with the consensus seeming to be that an individual owners get no real
> >> > protection putting his personal airplane under corporate or LLC
> >> > ownership. And now it turns out he might lose some protection, because
> >> > LLC owners are not covered by some states' consumer protection laws,
> >> > see:
>
> >> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/883-full.html#195375
>
> >> Only in Kalifornia (?), would a company that consumes things not be a
> >> consumer.
>
> > Do you know for sure that it's only in California?
>
> The (?) indicates...what, to you

Since you misspelled California, I took it to mean you were
questioning the spelling.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 11, 11:37 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/883-full.html#195375
>>
>> >> Only in Kalifornia (?), would a company that consumes things not be a
>> >> consumer.
>>
>> > Do you know for sure that it's only in California?
>>
>> The (?) indicates...what, to you
>
> Since you misspelled California, I took it to mean you were
> questioning the spelling.

I didn't misspell anything.

[Douglas Paterson]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> There was some discussion of this concept in the newsgroup before,
> with the consensus seeming to be that an individual owners get no real
> protection putting his personal airplane under corporate or LLC
> ownership. And now it turns out he might lose some protection, because
> LLC owners are not covered by some states' consumer protection laws,
> see:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/883-full.html#195375
>

That discussion you reference led me to find this article on AOPA's site; I
haven't seen it cited here before, and since the topic has been
re-raised...:

http://www.aopa.org:80/members/files/topics/incorporation_overview.html

Bottom line, I've decided NOT to hold ownership of my (as yet theoretical)
airplane in a corporation. If my circumstance change (take on one or more
partners, enter a lease-back, etc.), I'll re-evaluate that at the time. I'm
still taking contrary opinions, if anyone would care to explain to this rank
newbie why he needs to incorporate!! :)
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Ron Natalie]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

>
> Bottom line, I've decided NOT to hold ownership of my (as yet theoretical)
> airplane in a corporation.

If there is only a single owner/pilot then a corporation doesn't do
anything really for you other than add another layer of hassle.
Corps. help out with multiple people involved in the aircraft but
only to the point where they weren't involved in the actionable
incident.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 12, 4:13 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
> > Bottom line, I've decided NOT to hold ownership of my (as yet theoretical)
> > airplane in a corporation.
>
> If there is only a single owner/pilot then a corporation doesn't do
> anything really for you other than add another layer of hassle.
> Corps. help out with multiple people involved in the aircraft but
> only to the point where they weren't involved in the actionable
> incident.

Yes, and depending on the state that can be a big hassle. In
California (and New York I believe) you have to file with the
secretary of state every year (and pay a fee). You have to pay state
franchise tax (in California its $800/yr for an LLC or corporation
regardless of the state you are incorported in), plus you have to
maintain meeting notes (otherwise the courts will invalidate your
coporation when you need it).

-Robert

[Douglas Paterson]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 12, 4:13 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>
>> > Bottom line, I've decided NOT to hold ownership of my (as yet
>> > theoretical)
>> > airplane in a corporation.
>>
>> If there is only a single owner/pilot then a corporation doesn't do
>> anything really for you other than add another layer of hassle.
>> Corps. help out with multiple people involved in the aircraft but
>> only to the point where they weren't involved in the actionable
>> incident.
>
> Yes, and depending on the state that can be a big hassle. In
> California (and New York I believe) you have to file with the
> secretary of state every year (and pay a fee). You have to pay state
> franchise tax (in California its $800/yr for an LLC or corporation
> regardless of the state you are incorported in), plus you have to
> maintain meeting notes (otherwise the courts will invalidate your
> coporation when you need it).


.... And these are precisely the reasons I've decided to forego
incorporation. Agreed on all points--and, thanks again to the group for
giving me enough pointers to come to that conclusion!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Judah]

xyzzy > wrote in
ups.com:

>> The (?) indicates...what, to you
>
> Since you misspelled California, I took it to mean you were
> questioning the spelling.

Not everything in life is an adventure.