Can I bill my airplane travel expenses to a client?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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".

"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.

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)

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)