LLC ownership of airplane -- another twist

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/archive...ll.html#195375

"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/archive...ll.html#195375


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

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/archive...ll.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?

"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/archive...ll.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?

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

roups.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/archive...ll.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.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 11, 11:37 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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.

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.

"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/archive...ll.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..._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)

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.

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