And then, in any modern country, you will get busted retrospectively
That depends on how long it goes on and the trajectory.
If you either give up after a few years, then that is a reasonable attempt to star a business that simply didn’t work out. But that’s a few years of very tax efficient flying.
If things are making progress and it looks like it will make a profit eventually then you’ll be well justified in continuing for quite some time without question.
, in any modern country, the tax office has a right to demand separate accounts for each distinct activity, so you can’t offset stuff like that…
Indeed there is no question that you would prepare separate accounts for it. It’s a separate business. But the losses from one business and be set of against another income in the same year in Ireland. It’s also allowed in the UK. I don’t know about other counties but it’s likely at least some other countries have similar provisions.
Anyway I’m not suggest anyone do it. I’m rather pointing out that I’ve seen a few aviation business/YouTube channels where I would be surprised if they could ever be profitable, and it’s crossed my mind more than once that this might be the real purpose behind it.
If you fly as a business then surely you must have a CPL.
When it is not your business photography is accepted on a PPL just like flying from A -B carrying your business papers or samples or even a camera.
YT has to make money somewhere otherwise there is no business. That somewhere as.with newspapers, magazines or television is usually advertising. The alternative is subscription. YT offers both.
More than 90% of YT videos are poor or worse.
The only audience they are likely to attract are people who have an interest in a particular subject. The interest group worldwide in flying videos, unless its crashes, is not large. So if you look at the number of views for most flying YT videos, it is in the thousands, occasionally the tens of thousands.
Contrast this with say Sky News (which needs to be cross subsidised IIUC because of lack of viewers to cover its costs through advertising ) will have a regular average viewership at any time of day or night of well over 1million.
Something like the Repair Shop on BBC possibly well over 5million an episode. I haven’t looked at viewing figures for a long time and.since then there has been a dramatic increase in the number and variety of programme content on offer.
My latest favourite You tuber is a guy called Regis Baudiaux. Why? Because he gets a lot of fun out of his Super Guépard including mountain flying. I doubt very much if he makes a cent out of his videos.
You don’t need a CPL to make money taking pics or videos. You would if it was commissioned work but then you need an AOC. A plain CPL is worth little in Europe.
YT is full of utter dross. Way more than 90% of it. But a lot of that is subtle, and a lot of people buy into it.
I was going to move the topic of YT ad blocking out, but it is probably done with now. This could be interesting.
Peter wrote:
You would if it was commissioned work but then you need an AOC.
You don’t need an AOC for commercial photo flights. In fact you don’t even need a permit, but you do need a CPL. (It’s part-SPO and not part-CAT.)
This is country dependent.
Commercial photography, FI in a commercial school and corporate pilot (or the pilot for hire on an aircraft arranged by the passengers) I believe all require CPL+.
If you needed a cpl then that would be even better!
You could get a tax deduction for your cpl training as the stills are necessary for your business!
Peter wrote:
This is country dependent.
I was referring to the EU (EASA).
If you do aerial photography as a sole trader in order to make money you are a business, even if it costs more to take the photographs than you actually make, which would be the case if you are seeking any tax allowance against the cost of flying. If the intention of the business is to make a profit then you need a.CPL to fly the plane even if you ate flying the aircraft. Your intention has to be to make a profit in the eyes of the taxman, if you are to take advantage of tax breaks. If in order to carry out that business you would need.to train for a CPL then yes a certain amount of that training might well be able to be offset against tax. However, it would be advisable to agree what you will be allowed with your tax authority first. Some might only allow it out of future profits. Others might insist it is further education and may only allow the it without the VAT.
If you are taking photos for yourself or videos for YT but you.do not intend it to be your business then you don’t need a CPL even if you eventually do get some sort of for any.content. This is a grey area and the CAA vould well get a bit miffed if you were earning millions as an influencer (aviation related) on a PPL. Of course you would have to pay taxon such earnings with no ability to set the income against costs.
Thr CAA might also take a look if they thought you were recklessly endangering the aircraft, any passengers or people on the ground.
The dividing.line is something I had to deal with for many years in countries around the world as many film and television technicians, particularly camera persons and directors are holders of PPLs and many would happily fly and film if the production company was paying for the plane. It would be a win for the pilot/technician and the production company but in most cases is the wrong.side of the PPL/CPL dividing line. On the other hand there are things that can be done (country dependent) which would lead eg.to a PPL camera person getting his or her aircraft costs paid by a production company.
This is all country dependent though.
