What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Aircraft ownership; personal v company

rockitdoc

Well Known Member
Sponsor
If an aircraft is not used for business, is there any reason one should be registered to a business instead of to a person?
 
If an aircraft is not used for business, is there any reason one should be registered to a business instead of to a person?

Other than taxes, I can't think of one. Liability is on the pilot, not the aircraft, so don't see how it helps there.

Larry
 
info

I actually looked at setting up a Delaware LLC.

Long story short, it really did not make that much of a difference in my case...

I opted not to do it...
 
Property Taxes for a aircraft are based on where it actually lives so setting up a LLC in another state is of little value from a property tax standpoint if you are honest. It does however allow some to make creative claims on where the aircraft is based.
Putting a aircraft in a business and actually using it for business purposes can allow tax deductions you can’t get as a individual. Section 179 deductions/depreciation can be very lucrative. I have no idea how that plays out with a aircraft registered as a experimental.
 
Last edited:
Two benefits I can think of, if not used for a business purpose:
-easily transfer ownership without effecting registration, especially convenient if you want partner(s).

-another layer of anonymity from ADS-b/flight aware/etc. your personal info wouldn't be available just the business name and registered address.
 
Check how your property taxes are handled. In Texas, at least Harris County, aircraft used for business are taxed. Aircraft registered to a business are presumed business use. You can refute it but they will hound you to death. A friend got tired of fighting them and moved his planes out of an LLC. Of course then he got hit for sales tax on the transfer. YMMV
 
Other than taxes, I can't think of one. Liability is on the pilot, not the aircraft, so don't see how it helps there.

Larry

Not true ! If there is an issue that turns into litigation, the aircraft owner will be pulled into it – especially if there are assts that could be obtained. Having a company that owns the plane limits your exposure to the company assets.
 
In a previous life (before he retired), my CFI used to be my CPA. He owns three airplanes. He advised me that, in this state at least, there is zero advantage to forming an LLC to own the airplane.

(His billing rates as a CFI are a lot less than they were as a CPA)
 
Not true ! If there is an issue that turns into litigation, the aircraft owner will be pulled into it – especially if there are assts that could be obtained. Having a company that owns the plane limits your exposure to the company assets.

Exactly, in my state the only assets at risk are those assets owned by the LLC.. If the owner formed the LLC, but then failed to run the LLC as a business (co-mingled funds, used property for non-business purposes) the liability protection may be non-existent. I own an LLC, but decided to buy my plane under my name. Didn't want the continual headache of keeping records and justifying why I flew somewhere for a $100 hamburger.
 
Not true ! If there is an issue that turns into litigation, the aircraft owner will be pulled into it – especially if there are assts that could be obtained. Having a company that owns the plane limits your exposure to the company assets.

Sorry, but don't buy that. If I slam my plane into a house, I, as the pilot, am liable for the damages created. Sure, they will try to also sue the aircraft owner, if other than me, but that doesn't limit or offset my personal liability as the pilot. I can attempt to shift the blame by saying it was the aircrafts fault, but if I own the company that owns the aircraft, I can't see how that helps. Yes, LLC's provide some shielding, but is not to hard to penetrate that veil, especially when the sole purpose of the LLC is to simply limit liability as opposed to an actual business venture. Unless I can definitively prove that the aircraft was 100% at fault and that I wasn't able to prevent the issue through diligence, I am still liable. Even if the LLC owns the plane, but the pilot does maintenance, that will pretty much put the liability back on the pilot in most cases. Likely different if 100% of work is done by A&P other than the pilot, in which case they'll sue him.

If the pilot does the maintenance, you should be confident that blame cannot be shifted to the aircraft owner/LLC. In most cases, they will be able to prove that the maintainer could have foreseen or prevented the incident.

Let say the crank breaks due to an unseen flaw in the metallurgy. I have all confidence that the plaintiff will mount a strategy that the pilot could have avoided hitting their house and paralyzing their daughter and receive a substantial judgement for negligence, regardless of who owns the plane. Assuming, of course, that the pilot has enough reachable assets to make it worth the attorneys time.
 
Last edited:
If you have a rock solid LLC, have been maintaining the LLC properly, were not engaged in tortious conduct (bad acts) when you crashed into the house, were flying the plane for business purposes, you probably won't have personal liability. The assets of the LLC would be at stake..


I partially agree with the above. Though I still believe that they would sue the pilot for negligence, if he had substantial assets or good insurance. However, the OP clearly stated that he is not running a business and the plane wouldn't be used for business purposes, so I don't see how this applies. Corporate stuff is different, as the corp usually defends the pilot and carries insurance for his liability.

For the record, when suing for negligence, a tortuous act is not required. Negligence is about neglect, not bad acts. I don't need to prove you did something wrong; Only prove that you didn't do something that you should have (lot of room for interpretation on this), such as hitting the backyard instead of a house in the above example or not identifying a flaw in a pre-flight insection. Big difference.
 
Last edited:
I partially agree with the above. Though I still believe that they would sue the pilot for negligence, if he had substantial assets or good insurance. However, the OP clearly stated that he is not running a business and the plane wouldn't be used for business purposes, so I don't see how this applies.

Yeah, I don't quite understand putting the plane in an LLC, if it's not going to be used for business purposes..

The quick answer to the OP's original question is "NO".. (In my opinion, which according to my wife doesn't count for much!)
 
Last edited:
I am a CPA by profession and building an RV7 (been waiting 3.5 years for the right opportunity to say that!) and have owned a Piper Cherokee 180 for the past 10 years. Hope to be flying the RV by this time next year!

I fly purely for personal satisfaction and can't justify much, if any, business use of the plane. I haven't found a good reason to form an LLC or to rightly justify transferring the plane to my business. So, it remains owned by and registered to me personally.

Just sharing,
Ryan
 
Don't take legal advice that you find on the internet

jrock836 and I apparently went to different law schools. :)

If you have a rock solid LLC, have been maintaining the LLC properly, were not engaged in tortious conduct (bad acts) when you crashed into the house, were flying the plane for business purposes, you probably won't have personal liability.
 
I think for me its best to have a LARGE personal umbrella covering my plane. Better to have them go after insurance rather than assets in my case. Been through a few large lawsuits in my lifetime and it saved me having lots of coverage.
 
jrock836 and I apparently went to different law schools. :)

Please explain further then. I haven't been to law school and always ready to learn something new. I only know what I know based on running my own LLC over the past 10 or so years and it's real estate based, so nothing related to airplanes..
 
I think for me its best to have a LARGE personal umbrella covering my plane. Better to have them go after insurance rather than assets in my case. Been through a few large lawsuits in my lifetime and it saved me having lots of coverage.

Where do you find one? I have a substantial umbrella policy (auto, home, etc.), but it specifically excludes aviation and thought that was pretty standard from most insurers.

Larry
 
This topic comes up in this forum and others from time to time. And usually every time there is wrong information.

If I am flying the airplane, my hand is on the stick or yoke, and an accident occurs and someone is injured or property is damaged, I am liable. It doesn't matter if I am the owner, and LLC is the owner, a corporation is the owner, a flight school is the owner, a friend is the owner, or if a man from mars is the owner. If I am flying and my hand is on the stick or yoke, I am liable. Period.

Now those other parties may also be liable and in addition the party who does the maintenance may be liable. But none of that stuff prevents the personal liability of the pilot!
 
Where do you find one? I have a substantial umbrella policy (auto, home, etc.), but it specifically excludes aviation and thought that was pretty standard from most insurers.

Larry

That's my experience too. My agent tells me that umbrella policies generally exclude aviation-related liability.
 
LLCs and liability

Please explain further then. I haven't been to law school and always ready to learn something new. I only know what I know based on running my own LLC over the past 10 or so years and it's real estate based, so nothing related to airplanes..

Happy to - and I hope I didn't come off as snarky (I suspect I could learn quite a lot from you about real estate....)

First, the mandatory disclaimer:

THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS HYPOTHETICAL ONLY. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. NOBODY ANYWHERE IS MY CLIENT, NOR AM I HIS OR HER LAWYER. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AND NOBODY SHOULD RELY ON ANYTHING I SAY. IN FACT I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTIFIABLY INSANE, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT I FLY ONE OF THOESE "LITTLE AIRPLANES." YOUR JURISDICTION'S LAW MAY VERY WELL DIFFER QUITE A BIT FROM THE FOLLOWING. AND IN ANY EVENT THE FOLLOWING IS TOTALLY WRONG AND UTTERLY UNRELIABLE.

As several people have mentioned, it's basically impossible for an LLC or other corporate structure to shield *the person who is actually flying the aircraft* against personal liability for a crash. His or her personal assets and/or insurance will very, very likely be on the line.

It's important to remember that pilots can be held liable for negligence as well as for reckless or intentional conduct -- so whether there have been "bad acts" isn't really the test. Gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional bad acts are worse, of course, and so they may permit the court to assess punitive as well as compensatory damages. That sort of thing varies a lot by state.

Other members of the LLC, who weren't flying, may (emphasize MAY) be able to use the aircraft-owning LLC or corporation to shield their personal assets. Much like you aren't personally on the hook as a Boeing shareholder if Boeing gets sued after a crash. True, your Boeing stock might get reduced to $0 value, but they can't get your bank account.

But the facts will matter. Keep in mind that LLC members can be very different from Boeing shareholders. Maybe one of those other LLC members, who hopes to use the LLC as a shield.... negligently repaired the aircraft, possibly causing the crash? Maybe one of them built the aircraft, and is liable for its defective construction? In circumstances like that, they could be personally liable just like the pilot.

From what I can tell, owning an aircraft via an LLC can be useful when there are multiple individuals owning the plane, where you want the ability to easily enter and exit the ownership structure, and where you want to limit your liabiliy, as much as possible, for actions of OTHER members. I don't see much of a way to use an LLC to limit one's own liability, or to avoid sales/use/property taxes in the state in which the aircraft is actually based.
 
Mr. Young's response, above, is absolutely correct. Many, many people overestimate the value of operating under a business entity with regard to limiting liability.

As he said, if you're the pilot and any kind of claim can be made that you did something wrong, you will be named in a lawsuit. It won't matter that you're operating an airplane owned by someone else, maintained by someone else, built by someone else, etc.

Having a plane in a business entity may be helpful if you own the plane with other people or if other people routinely fly your airplane. If one of your "partners" (shareholders, members of LLC, employees, etc.) wrecks the company plane, there's a chance your personal assets would be protected. I say "may be protected" because there's always a creative argument to be made along the lines that you, as a partial owner of the entity that owned the airplane, were negligent in entrusting the crash pilot to operate the aircraft... You knew he routinely drinks before flying and engages in dangerous behavior and you still allowed him to buy into the plane... that sort of thing. I can't point to this type of claim specifically in regard to aviation, but I've seen it used in other entities.

To make this concept a little less abstract, consider a small engine rebuild shop. It's incorporated. The proprietor is the primary engine builder. He maintains the entity properly and observes all legal formalities. He religiously signs logbook entries as "Joe, for Aircraft Engine Overhauls, LLC."

If one of the engines Joe reassembles on behalf of AEO, LLC grenades and causes an accident and a lawsuit ensues, Joe will still be sued and could very well be held liable if it can be shown that he did something wrong in assembling the engine. AEO, LLC will also be named in the lawsuit.

If, however, Joe was busy doing other things when the engine was being overhauled and an employee of AEO, LLC, "Bill" assembled the engine as part of his duties as an employee of AEO, LLC, Bill will be named in the lawsuit as well as AEO, LLC, but likely NOT Joe, personally. Even in this case, there's a chance Joe could be named in the suit if he was negligent in hiring Bill or if he was negligent in supervising Bill and he should have known better than to trust Bill to assemble an engine.

It's been a long time since I practiced law full time, and an even longer time since my undergrad class in Principles of Risk and Insurance, but the general advice I routinely gave is that you need enough insurance to cover whatever peril you're concerned with such that the insurance company has enough on the line to (a) provide a robust legal defense, and (b) in the event you lose the lawsuit, the insurance money is enough that going after your personal assets isn't worth it in terms of the ratio of plaintiff effort to potential recovery. I.e. if you have $10 million in assets, you need more insurance than someone with $10,000 in assets.

There are some in RV-land who could easily sustain the loss of their RV and choose to go without insurance on the hull of the aircraft. These same people probably have enough net worth that they will still want liability insurance because their $150k RV doesn't worry them too much, but losing control on landing and ground looping into the Gulfstream jet taxiing by and causing a million in damages might put a dent in their piggy bank.

This turned into a really long post, but I think it's important that people understand that sometimes the DIY approach for this stuff can cause a false sense of security based on a misunderstanding of some basic legal principles. It's completely possible to DIY your own business entity, but it becomes a problem of not knowing what you don't know. The information is out there, but you need to be diligent about looking for it and not relying on your buddy at morning coffee advising "put your plane in an LLC so you don't have any liability." Heck, we build and maintain our own airplanes and most of us aren't bonafide airplane mechanics... but we spend tons of time reading and heeding the advice of the likes of Dan Horton, Vic Syracuse, Walt, etc.

That is all.

[Edited to add: I must've been typing my post when Dugaro submitted his. I'll leave mine as another data point.]
 
Last edited:
So the other question is will the LLC shield ones personal information from prying eyes?

This would be my sole interest in an LLC or trust for the airplane. I understand that someone who digs hard enough could find the info on the LLC, but it would at least keep Joe Sixpack from easily seeing me on flightaware and getting my home address.

As I'd be the only pilot/owner I don't see any liability shielding happening, and no tax benefits. I just don't know what would be involved or if it would be worth the effort.
 
All good info and I learned something. I'll try to avoid crashing into the multi million dollar jets! Thanks guys..
 
This would be my sole interest in an LLC or trust for the airplane. I understand that someone who digs hard enough could find the info on the LLC, but it would at least keep Joe Sixpack from easily seeing me on flightaware and getting my home address.

As I'd be the only pilot/owner I don't see any liability shielding happening, and no tax benefits. I just don't know what would be involved or if it would be worth the effort.

In Texas, by going through the Texas Comptroller website my personal info linked to my LLC is visible. I believe if I used a Registered Agent it would be a little more difficult to obtain info online. YMMV depending on your location..
 
Last edited:
So the other question is will the LLC shield ones personal information from prying eyes?

As jrock says, it kinda depends on your state and the entity. In Colorado you can visit the Secretary of State website and look up information on business entities. It wouldn't take much to find my address based on the documents I filed to create and maintain my LLC. I still usually own my planes within an LLC because most casual lookie-lu's don't go to the trouble to look.

I routinely plug in N-numbers so see who owns a plane as they pull up in front of the airport restaurant when I'm having breakfast. In my case, I usually need a refresher on names because I'm embarrassed at having met the owner, but can't remember his name.
 
Craziness

I am not worried about fellow pilots, but I am worried about the crazy neighbors who don't like airplanes or chem trails.

I think we need to start a petition to make the FAA database private, much like the DMW database.
 
One thing that always confused me on this topic is that experimental airplane prohibit commercial use. So why does the fact that the airplane is owned and maintained by a cooperation not violate the none commercial use rule.

Can somebody explain the legal argument behind that?

Thx

Oliver
 
I am not worried about fellow pilots, but I am worried about the crazy neighbors who don't like airplanes or chem trails.

I think we need to start a petition to make the FAA database private, much like the DMW database.

It took the murder of a young actress by an obsessed "fan" who got her home address from DMV to change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_Privacy_Protection_Act

Hardly likely the FAA will respond to a mere petition.
 
So the other question is will the LLC shield ones personal information from prying eyes?

I found it educational that a large corporation I was contracted to fly for would buy a new airplane and immediately sell it to a bank at closing. Then they would lease the plane back from the bank. So, the registration certificate in the plane always showed the owner as a bank with a P.O.Box address in a different state, even though the corporation actually controlled the plane.

I don't know why an individual couldn't create an "out-of-state" entity to own the plane. Thereby, requiring a registered agent in that state. The individual would control the plane as an officer of the entity, but wouldn't actually own the plane himself. It looks like it would take a couple hundred dollars every year to maintain the state entity registration and registered agent fees. This is primarily for privacy rather liability protection.
 
Last edited:
One thing that always confused me on this topic is that experimental airplane prohibit commercial use. So why does the fact that the airplane is owned and maintained by a cooperation not violate the none commercial use rule.

Can somebody explain the legal argument behind that?

Thx

Oliver

Totally unrelated. The FAA prohibits commercial activity or use (pay for service delivered). That has nothing to do with ownership.
 
Here in Canada the primary reasons for putting a private airplane into a corporation are for privacy and tax avoidance. We have no "use tax" on airplanes, but there are sales taxes on new and used airplanes. When a corporation owns the plane instead, the new owner just becomes the new CEO of the corporation, and the old owner retires from the corporation. The plane is still owned by the corporation, so nobody is triggered to send a bill for any sales taxes.
 
Totally unrelated. The FAA prohibits commercial activity or use (pay for service delivered). That has nothing to do with ownership.

OK, I'm confused, too...so a business owns the plane, got that. But then how is it used for business purposes, and not personal, and that not a "commercial activity"?

I have no interest in doing anything like this (use an LLC or whatever), but just curious. Seems to me if the business is paying for the plane, and the fuel, and the maintenance, and the insurance and the hangar and whatever, that seems to be "commercial" use to me...but IANAAL. :)
 
OK, I'm confused, too...so a business owns the plane, got that. But then how is it used for business purposes, and not personal, and that not a "commercial activity"?

I have no interest in doing anything like this (use an LLC or whatever), but just curious. Seems to me if the business is paying for the plane, and the fuel, and the maintenance, and the insurance and the hangar and whatever, that seems to be "commercial" use to me...but IANAAL. :)

Or what if you collect a couple of dollars from partners in the airplane as reserve for an engine overhaul every month. Doesn’t that look a lot like a rental fee ... .

Oliver
 
Here in Canada the primary reasons for putting a private airplane into a corporation are for privacy and tax avoidance. We have no "use tax" on airplanes, but there are sales taxes on new and used airplanes. When a corporation owns the plane instead, the new owner just becomes the new CEO of the corporation, and the old owner retires from the corporation. The plane is still owned by the corporation, so nobody is triggered to send a bill for any sales taxes.

This is the best argument, imho, for an LLC. In CA every registration change invokes another round of sales taxes - avoided by an LLC. By the way, in the US a "use tax" is really a sales tax in wolves' clothes - it's an end run around the US constitution, which forbids a state from taxing interstate commerce.
 
Since the waiting list for hangar space at my airport (KSGJ) is more than 5yrs long, having the airplane in an LLC is a good idea. Those that have an airplane in an LLC sell the LLC and the new owner just moves into the LLC's hangar, no waiting for hangar space. Those that don't have an LLC loose the hangar when the airplane is sold while the new owner has to wait the approximate 5yrs for a hangar.

I know of some airplanes that sold extra well here because they were in an LLC and the new owner got the hangar. Shortly after the sale the LLC had a different airplane in the hangar.

IMHO, this makes having an LLC here is a good idea.

:cool:
 
Check how your property taxes are handled. In Texas, at least Harris County, aircraft used for business are taxed. Aircraft registered to a business are presumed business use. You can refute it but they will hound you to death. A friend got tired of fighting them and moved his planes out of an LLC. Of course then he got hit for sales tax on the transfer. YMMV

Your friend must be an aircraft dealer or sells aircraft as part of his regular course of business. If your friend isn't an aircraft dealer or doesn't make a business of flipping airplanes then he qualifies for an "occasional sale" sales tax exemption in the State of Texas. An aircraft dealer (think Van Bortel Aircraft in Arlington) has to charge sales tax because that is what they do for a living, sell airplanes. Even if they deliver out of state. But a fast food restaurant with an aircraft registered in the name of the restaurant does not have to pay sales tax when they buy or collect it when they sell an airplane. Because this is considered an "occasional sale" and aircraft sales are not a part of what they do in the normal course of business. So I can only assume your friend doesn't qualify under the occasional sale stipulation. A more simple example of an occasional sale would be an individual airplane owner Joe selling his Cherokee to Bob so he can upgrade to a Mooney. Assuming neither of these gentlemen are sole proprietor aircraft sales professionals, then Joe wouldn't have paid sales tax when buying the Cherokee originally or the Mooney now, and Bob wouldn't pay sales tax when buying the Cherokee from Joe. So if you buy a used Cessna 206 from Van Bortel they will collect sales tax on the transaction. But if another similar Cessna 206 was for sale by a private seller on the same airport and you opt to buy that airplane instead of the Van Bortel deal you would not pay sales tax under the occasional sale exemption. Sales tax is a Texas Comptroller issue and not a local county or property appraisal distric issue.

As far as property "use tax", most appraisal districts in Texas will automatically try to get a use tax for any airplane registered to an entity in their county or district. However, if that entity is just a group of friends who created an entity to hold the airplane, something like "4 Guys With an Airplane, LLC" who all own 1/4 share in a Luscombe or the like they can protest the use tax and present evidence that the entity does not fly for hire or make any revenues from the aircraft. Then the appraisal district cannot charge a business use tax on their aircraft. And the appraisal district should leave it alone at least until there is any new owner registration change. If Harris County continued to send a use tax bill every year to your friend they are just being tools and are setting themselves up for a suit.

As a side note in Texas if a local business entity owns an aircraft that generates direct business revenue through it's operation but that aircraft never sets a tire within the county or district in which the entity is located, any use tax bill from that district becomes null and void because the property (airplane) has never physically been within the district. They can't charge a use tax if there is no presence or use of the property, by default. Think of an aerial photography company with a business office and registered address in Cameron County in South Texas whose airplane only operates from an airport in the panhandle and never lands in Cameron County. No use tax for Cameron County.

ADS-B has put a new twist on this kind of stuff as the folks a couple of years ago found out when they flew over Florida in aircraft registered within a year when they got a big fat sales tax bill from that state since it was construed that the airplane was newly purchased and in Florida, even if they only over flew. At one of the Sun N Fun fly-ins the state of Florida sent tax bills to the aircraft manufacturers who displayed their new airplanes at the show. The state maintained that the new aircraft were brought into the state within a year of new and triggered sales tax. Naturally the lawyers had a field day but imagine what the bill was for the Cessna and Beech displays alone.
 
Last edited:
Agree with jlitd

I live in Texas and have fought all of these battles. We have a LLC, but I told the county it was illegal to use an experimental aircraft for business and they have left us alone. I did get nailed after a two year fight on a L-19 I bought from a museum because they sold hats and t shirts and collected taxes. The state comptroller threaten the museum after they signed the occasional sale agreement. The museum was in Oshkosh.
 
I was told by the FSDO that based on 8130.2J section 15-2 that states the aircraft has to be built by a "Natural Person"
Says
An aircraft manufactured or assembled by a
business does not meet the education or recreation requirements of § 21.191(g). Prototype
aircraft built to prove the design for sale as an amateur-built kit are not produced by persons
“solely for their own education or recreation” and, therefore, are not eligible for an experimental
airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(g).

I have my RV registered in my LLC name and trying to get my initial inspection for airworthiness and first flight
 
If you are in the USA and are not a US Citizen, then registering it in an LLC is a workaround allowing you to own a N-numbered aircraft.
 
Company plane

Back to the OP question. Our RV7A is owned by the company (S-corp) and used for business. Usually myself flying, and the only other person that may travel is an officer or employee. Records are kept of all maintenance, trips, etc. Great way to get to our job sites and a write-off, depreciation, etc. So, yes, for tax reasons.
 
The cherokee I fly is owned by an LLC. We have 5 partners each with a 20% equity in the LLC. Its been very convenient to simply edit the operating agreement with the names of new partners although it does cost a few hundred per year in tax return fees. We're assuming also that this insulates the aircraft itself from being considered an asset should anyone get into financial trouble. We keep good company though and this hasn't ever been tested.
 
Given last year’s court ruling and subsequent out cry where ‘not used for compensation or hire’ was very broadly defined, I wouldn’t advertise this use.

I don't think that changed the FAA's or the courts interpretation of how the flying is related to the compensation, outside the realm of flight instruction. The FAA has always stated that if the flying is incidental to the service being compensated for, it is allowed. For example, if I am an IT consultant and I fly to a customer site to deliver IT consulting services, the flight is not related to the services that I deliver for compensation, therefore allowed. Alternatively, if I fly to a customer to deliver a part and that was the purpose of the trip and I was compensated either for my time or more generally for that delivery service, it is not allowed, because the flying IS a component of the service delivered, again assuming I was compensated for that specific service.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Given last year’s court ruling and subsequent out cry where ‘not used for compensation or hire’ was very broadly defined, I wouldn’t advertise this use.

Bob, it’s transportation, just like our company vehicles. And, yes, our accountant and lawyer were involved. Thanks.
 
LLC vs Tax Man

A minor bit of thread drift: In past 5 years I have purchased 3 RV9A's and an RV10. (All flying and built by others, I know, I know, I'm addicted and will be seeking mental help soon :eek:). But within 90 to 120 days after each purchase I have received a TAX DUE NOTICE from my State. The notice refers to the Tail# and requests that I send in the proof of transaction date, sale amount and proof of payment amount for the Sale as well as the SALES TAX amount due with Late Fee's & Penalties. It is not about who sold it, it is about what address you register it with the FAA. You may think the purchase price is an "Honor System" but you can be sure it is NOT. The State will provide to you the Value if your Deal seems out of line to them. As for the Tail# reference, there is only one source. I doubt the LLC would prevent the TAX DUE NOTICE in my State. (I have been informed there are actual GOV'T Contractors that get rewarded for providing the leads to send those notice's to. Ed S
 
Change of address?

I thought about registering the plane as part of an LLC but decided to just use a PO box instead.

So if I have a reserved N number at a different address, do I have to change the address of the reserved N number before using it; or does just the name has to match?

I assume the bill of sale and registration address must be the same thou.
 
Back
Top