Originally Posted by bose-x
You one of Blairs "Babes" then Whirls?
Absolutely not - I think you'll find that the BiK "rules were a Thatcherite invention - politics doesn't come into it - people dreaming up fancy schemes for tax evasion does!
Originally Posted by IO540
I am pleased to inform you that you have substantially mis-speculated on the actual situation.
If I have
substantially misspeculated, I apologise. I DID say that I was finding it difficult exactly HOW this situation could arise. And still do. Which of my two cases applies in your posts? If the second, The asset could easily be made "not available" by having the key locked away and a stipulation in the director's contract that the aircraft was not for personal use. If the first, then each "director/shareholder" should be contributing equally.
I suspect that if this case has gone to the Commissioners then there is a lot more to it than meets the eye and is not being told here.
Cheers
Whirls