FNG
Unfortunately this thread needs merging with the other one.
You mention "profit" but why "profit"? Recovery of "direct costs" still results in a loss if the P1 is the owner, because there is no contribution towards the 50hr check, 150hr check, the annual, the engine fund, the prop fund, etc, etc.
This is why you have to be very clear.
As I say in the other thread, an individual can do a business flight if the employer provides the plane, and the employer is allowed to provide the plane free of charge (e.g. the employer owns the plane; the employer rents or leases it in, etc). This gets around whether the individual can recover just the fuel+landing fee, or some of the other costs.
That way, the individual doesn't lose out. What I don't know is whether he can be paid for the travelling time....
Now let's make the situation more clear as mud
Let's say an individual works, as a part-time lavatory cleaner, for a flying club, and one day he rents a plane in from that same flying club, and takes 3 passengers. Under the PPL cost sharing rules, this man can recover 75% of what the club charged him for the rental. OK so far. But remember the club charged MORE than the direct costs; the club can make a profit.
BUT this man also gets some money from the f.c. because the cleans the bogs there. Some of this money comes from the plane he rented. So in effect he is getting more than 75% reimbursed by his passengers.
Can you see the problem?
I actually wrote to the CAA about this, and astonishingly they replied that it is permissible. It has to be permissible, otherwise anybody working for a business that rents out planes, and doesn't have a CPL etc, could not rent a plane privately from the company and make full use of the PPL cost sharing rules.
But it is open to abuse because man X, controlling Director of Ltd Company Y that owns a plane Z, could rent Z from Y at £1000/hr, get 3 passengers to reimburse £750/hr. This money goes to Y but X can draw most of it as salary, and even after allowing for tax/NIC he is still recovering more than 75%. I was concerned about this some time ago, for obvious legitimate reasons (anyone drawing money from a company that owns a plane could inadvertently bust the PPL cost sharing rules), and I got a written reply from the CAA legal department that this is OK, though presumably only for more reasonable numbers. I inflated the rental merely to illustrate the point.
What it comes down to is that the CAA seeks to keep a lid on what people can do without having a CPL+AOC. The CAA wishes to maintain extra standards where people pay for transport, plus of course the CAA very much likes the very substantial fees they get for AOC issue and renewal
But as my example shows, the regulations can't address every possible type of usage.
C.M.
I think that you can do business flights on both N-reg and G-reg (both Private and Transport CofA) provided you are employee of the company on whose busines the flight is, and you are not contractually required to fly.