I would also add that the other publicised defence to an attack under BIK (renting the plane to yourself at the same rate as charged to the outsiders) can be considered void, on the grounds that the business was "not set up to make a profit".
This is a difficult accusation to defend (which is why the HMRC crooks use it) if the business has not
actually made a profit (not paid any corporation tax). You could set up a totally pukka business (as I did) but if you are a pilot yourself they can still hit it.
And with a half decent plane it isn't going to make a profit, because the 25% writedown (capital allowances) will wipe out any operating profits quite nicely. (The 40% writedown rate is not available on rented-out assets).
Something to watch for UK based renters
I am sure a competent Dutch accountant (specialising in boats, horses, planes, prostitution
)will know more, but this kind of crap is another reason why "casual renting" (whether or not one has sold a block of hours in the hope of incentivising the renter into actually doing some flying) is not a good way to approach things if the owner is a pilot and his objective in this is operating cost sharing.
It works well with renting out a fleet of wrecked spamcans
