Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

End of corporate tax breaks for jets?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
We should also get rid of other tax loopholes ... like the Home Mortgage deduction and tax credits for having children, etc.. We lose tax revenue because of things like that. Why should people Rich enough to own their own home get a tax break, that those who live in apartments do not? And EITC ... Why should you get a tax credit for working?

All money should go to the government first, to be distributed fairly....
 
Last edited:
Cliff, if the scenario you describe gets found in an audit of "3X"'s books, the IRS is going to *hammer* the corporation and the guy getting the benefit.

This, much like your beef about "illegal charters" under 91.501, is much ado about nothing.

You're right in a certain respect, but the problem is much bigger than most people think about "illegal charters".

Normally, a company includes the income in the executive's W-2 as it is close to nothing.

See the example here from April 2010 in BJT-
Understanding the tax advantage requires understanding the tax. Consider Mr. Big, the president of Big Co., who frequently uses the corporate Hawker 800XP to travel to company facilities and business meetings. He also uses the aircraft to fly to his vacation home in the Caribbean. Part of Mr. Big's deal with Big Co. is that those personal flights are free.

This creates a tax problem for Mr. Big. The IRS generally treats an executive's free travel on company aircraft for nonbusiness purposes as a taxable fringe benefit. So unless Mr. Big wants to pay fair value for his flights to the Caribbean, he has to include that value on his personal income tax return. But since he isn't being charged, how does he calculate the amount? The IRS gives him two choices: impute as income the cost to charter a Hawker 800XP for the trip or use the IRS's special valuation rule, called the Standard Industry Fare Level (SIFL), which provides a valuation based on first-class airfare.

To calculate the income under SIFL, you multiply the number of statute miles flown by the applicable SIFL rate, currently $0.2484 per mile. For a 500-mile flight, for example, the total would be $124.20. You then multiply that total by a factor that depends on the aircraft's maximum certified takeoff weight. In the case of Big Co.'s Hawker 800XP, the takeoff weight results in the highest multiplier: 400 percent. So Mr. Big's taxable income is $124.40 times 4, or about $498.

$498 income from using the corporate jet personally for, lets say, a one hour flight. Same flight on a charter would be >$3.5K if someone would let you fly one way. BTW, the amount included as income is the same if you are on G550.

Does this sound right or make anybody, other than the executive, feel good? It cost the executive less than $174 to do the trip. The $174 is the tax he paid on the income inclusion.
 
$498 income from using the corporate jet personally for, lets say, a one hour flight. Same flight on a charter would be >$3.5K if someone would let you fly one way. BTW, the amount included as income is the same if you are on G550.

Does this sound right or make anybody, other than the executive, feel good? It cost the executive less than $174 to do the trip. The $174 is the tax he paid on the income inclusion
Sounds good to me... enough trips like that and we are creating pilot jobs. Better than sending tax money to the government. Better would be ... if we don't even have to report the trip to the IRS. What business is it of theirs what trips a PRIVATE jet makes?

We have to stop taxing income and all this ridiculous reporting of income and benefits and private jet trips to the government. If a company gives trips to executives ... so what? The more the merrier and by the way ... spend that tax savings on pilot raises! :)
 
Last edited:
Interesting approach...give away the trips, but then don't write off the aircraft. Can't have it both ways.

At the end, we (the working class) end up paying for it thru higher taxes because the corporation isn't paying anything and neither is the executive.
 
You know, that statement appears on the boards ocassionally and it is utterly false. Never been in a meeting and heard anybody say... "well we better factor in our corporate income taxes" It never happens. Markets set prices, not taxes.

Reminds me of the idiots that say it doesn't pay to work overtime because it puts them in a higher tax bracket.

Geezzzzzzzzzz...
 
You know, that statement appears on the boards ocassionally and it is utterly false. Never been in a meeting and heard anybody say... "well we better factor in our corporate income taxes" It never happens. Markets set prices, not taxes.

Reminds me of the idiots that say it doesn't pay to work overtime because it puts them in a higher tax bracket.

Geezzzzzzzzzz...

..and then there are the parasites who say it doesn't pay to work at all because it causes you to lose your bennies and may, in fact, put you in a (gasp) tax bracket.
 
The markets set prices ... and the COST OF GOVERNMENT is factored into to these markets... They do a good job of explaining this in THE FAIR TAX book and its sequel.

Chinese cost of government is <10% GDP. US cost of government is 25% projected to be 30% in a few years. These costs are reflected in the cost of products. The US also has significant State and Local taxes, large costs of Tax Compliance, onerous Regulation EPA, OSHA etc..

There is no tax rate that can afford government at 25% - 30% GDP. The average tax revenues to the United States has been 18% GDP during periods of high taxes and low taxes. Higher rates do not increase revenues... but do make us less competitive.

Increase the cost of private jets with taxes ... we will have fewer planes, fewer jobs in the industry.
 
Last edited:
Taxing Rich 100% does not solve deficit:

REPORT: Oracle of Omaha has problem with math...


In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said.

“Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take every single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion,” reported the Tax Foundation.

I am afraid that eliminating the deficit means (not raising taxes) cutting federal spending about 40%. From $3.8T to $2.2T. From 25% GDP to about 16% GDP (closer to Chinese spending who are our competitors).
 
Last edited:
REPORT: Oracle of Omaha has problem with math...




I am afraid that eliminating the deficit means (not raising taxes) cutting federal spending about 40%. From $3.8T to $2.2T. From 25% GDP to about 16% GDP (closer to Chinese spending who are our competitors).

Correct in every detail, Guns. This debt/deficit was not caused by lowering taxes, because tax revenue went UP after taxes were cut by W. Bush. The problem is massively increased spending. So reduce the spending, all you wise people in DC!
 
...because tax revenue went UP after taxes were cut by W. Bush.


Nice try. Did Fox tell you revenues went UP after the Bush Tax cuts? Why would you believe that? If I told you my cancer was cured AFTER I started smoking would you believe that too? At least you were right about spending. Bush cut revenue AND spent like a drunken sailor.

Here are the facts about tax revenues since 1940. In today's dollars or in constant FY2005 it looks the same. Receipts went DOWN after the Bush tax cuts.

Source (NOT from Fox).


For reference, the Bush tax cuts were really sort of a two part thing that happened in 2001 and 2003. Source


Fly Safe, GP
 
Last edited:
As your graph clearly shows, receipts went up as the economy improved.
 
We should also get rid of other tax loopholes ... like the Home Mortgage deduction and tax credits for having children, etc.. We lose tax revenue because of things like that. Why should people Rich enough to own their own home get a tax break, that those who live in apartments do not? And EITC ... Why should you get a tax credit for working?

All money should go to the government first, to be distributed fairly....

I get the sarcasm. :smash:

Why should you get a tax refund if you didn't pay income tax in the first place? :angryfire
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom