'Business trips'
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I am not aware of a successful use of training expenses as a business expense, but a competent accountant should know about this.
The test is "wholly and necessarily" which is pushing it a bit, but who knows?
The test is "wholly and necessarily" which is pushing it a bit, but who knows?
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
You could have a read of s250 ITEPH 2003 (Google is your friend).
Broadly speaking job related training will be an allowable deduction if it is a cost incurred by your employer and will not give rise to a BIK.
For example, where the employer meets the cost of a safer driver course for an employee who undertakes a significant amount of business mileage in a year the expenditure will not be excluded expenditure.
There is a potential conflict with certain types of training, and an IR is a good example, where the employer cannot require the employee to provide his services to the business in the same way that he can require a sales rep. to drive 1,000 miles a week as part of his job profile, an issue which has already been discussed on this thread.
However an aircraft can be just another means of transport, in the same way as a car, which can be used at least in the main for business with the employer meeting the cost and any employer should want to encourage safer driving as much as safer flying.
Broadly speaking job related training will be an allowable deduction if it is a cost incurred by your employer and will not give rise to a BIK.
For example, where the employer meets the cost of a safer driver course for an employee who undertakes a significant amount of business mileage in a year the expenditure will not be excluded expenditure.
There is a potential conflict with certain types of training, and an IR is a good example, where the employer cannot require the employee to provide his services to the business in the same way that he can require a sales rep. to drive 1,000 miles a week as part of his job profile, an issue which has already been discussed on this thread.
However an aircraft can be just another means of transport, in the same way as a car, which can be used at least in the main for business with the employer meeting the cost and any employer should want to encourage safer driving as much as safer flying.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
I think it is much more likely you can argue annual training at Simcom or FlightSafety for your profesional pilot is a deductable expense. So get your CPL/IR and then high quality currency training should be deductable. It is a bit more of a stretch I think for a PPL to have such a level of flying activity for a company that it justifies the company investing in such training but doesn't cross the ANO line.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 267
Likes: 31
From: UK
So what do you think the situation would be with the extra training? If an IR would allow me to visit potential new clients could this be seen as a legitimate expense or is this really pushing it.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I concur (not an accountant) although there are accepted ways of dealing with "part private" stuff. This is only "natural justice" (not a concept HMRC care about much 
).
I guess a lot of people have done these deals with their local branch but they won't advertise them on pprune.
).I guess a lot of people have done these deals with their local branch but they won't advertise them on pprune.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
I think in order to claim for the total cost of the training you would have to be able to successfully argue that the IR was wholly for business purposes and that you did not use it privately.
If you read my earlier post you will see the example I gave of the safer driver scheme.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 12
From: UK
Let us assume that a Flying Club owns an aeroplane and the owner says Fred would you like to take the plane to the IOM free of charge? You'd jump at the chance. You could take 3 friends with you, nobody would pay anything, it would be a private flight and all quite legal.
Now suppose the Flying School rented the aircraft rather than owning it, Would that change anything? No, because the persons flying in it are not paying anything.
Now suppose the Flying Club was a different sort of business would that make a difference?
The problem occurs if Fred hires the aeroplane and then tries to get his money back, thats what all the rules are written for.
No payment is made for the carriage of anyone on the flight so it is not public transport, it is a prvate flight. There is no work being conducted so it is not aerial work either.
If the aircraft is hired then it must be maintained to public transport standards because hire is aerial work for airworthiness purposes but so long as there is no payment relating to the carriage of passengers it is a Private Flight. As such nobody can be compelled to travel on such a flight. Its just the same as taking a company car. If the pilot is not remunerated then it can be done on a PPL.
A number of large companies in the UK used to run company aeroplanes without any need for an AOC.
Now suppose the Flying School rented the aircraft rather than owning it, Would that change anything? No, because the persons flying in it are not paying anything.
Now suppose the Flying Club was a different sort of business would that make a difference?
The problem occurs if Fred hires the aeroplane and then tries to get his money back, thats what all the rules are written for.
Meaning of public transport
260.—(1) For the purposes of this Order and subject to Part 34, an aircraft in flight is flying on a public transport flight if the conditions specified in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are—
(a) the aircraft is not flying on a commercial air transport flight; and
(b) that
(i) valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;
260.—(1) For the purposes of this Order and subject to Part 34, an aircraft in flight is flying on a public transport flight if the conditions specified in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are—
(a) the aircraft is not flying on a commercial air transport flight; and
(b) that
(i) valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;
If the aircraft is hired then it must be maintained to public transport standards because hire is aerial work for airworthiness purposes but so long as there is no payment relating to the carriage of passengers it is a Private Flight. As such nobody can be compelled to travel on such a flight. Its just the same as taking a company car. If the pilot is not remunerated then it can be done on a PPL.
A number of large companies in the UK used to run company aeroplanes without any need for an AOC.
