Loss = tax loss (which can be offset against profit in current company year, or carried forward and offset against profit in future company years).
What the installation is actually worth depends. You won’t recover most of the value on sale.
So, back to the original Q: why have a plane in a company. There are some good reasons (see e.g. “Threads possibly related to this one” below) but they aren’t these.
Liability is a primary reason. Third party liability insurance sums are ridiculously low.
In the UK (and this is country dependent) a Ltd Co protects each shareholder from the actions of the others. So it makes sense in a syndicate.
But it doesn’t protect the operator or the pilot from personal liability; that is basically impossible and I am pretty sure that’s true in every civilised country otherwise people would just put their assets in a company and walk away from all liability 
But it doesn’t protect the operator or the pilot from personal liability; that is basically impossible and I am pretty sure that’s true in every civilised country otherwise people would just put their assets in a company and walk away from all liability
If operator = company owning the plane then there is liability obviously, which is the point. Shareholder/s of said company are not liable with their personal assets.
If a shareholder is also a director of such company, and it can be proven that some oversight negligence existed, it’s a different story.
Otherwise, why is it called a „limited liability“ company?
The personal liability of the PIC for (gross) negligence is nice but not fruitful due to usually not enough personal assets.
Third party liability insurance will pay out to the (insufficient) insured sum, anything beyond will be the problem of the operator.
Hence, nobody has „bigger“ planes in their name personally.
A fuel leak during parking for a weekend at a larger airport can cause multi million damages.
Well, yes, but you get into country dependent areas.
Shareholder/s of said company are not liable with their personal assets.
They would be in the UK, if they were just shareholders in the aircraft directly (ref: Civil Aviation Act).
If a shareholder is also a director of such company, and it can be proven that some oversight negligence existed
Tricky area, and very complex and usually really hard to prove.
(gross) negligence
German specific term (previous threads) e.g. around here.
As for the other factors, that is why one has insurance
Insurance covers mishaps, not negligence. The final liability always rests with the operator (tricky term, but that’s not necessarily the PIC).
In the UK, insurance does cover negligence
Not covering negligence above some “level” is a German (possibly Germanic) thing.
One could also argue that not covering negligence makes insurance worthless, in many scenarios.
It will pay out „mandatory third party liability“ to the damaged third party, yes.
E.g., you own a TB-20 and rent it to a friend. Said friend flies intoxicated and experiences an engine failure, and crashes, albeit survives, into a house in Kensington, causing a major fire, injuries etc…
The damaged third party will get 1, 5 or whatever million (usual sum for N-reg pistons).
However, that will not be the end of it.
As I say, country dependent.
In the UK, if you are a named pilot, they will pay out (unless there are factors like no license, etc – much discussed already) and at their option will try to recover costs from 3rd parties. But they can’t claim from a named insured party.
If a named pilot was drunk, they probably won’t pay out to anybody. BTW minimum 3rd party cover in the EU is way more than 1.5M.
Peter wrote:
If a named pilot was drunk, they probably won’t pay out to anybody.
I do believe they have to pay liability anyway as the main purpose of 3rd party liability insurance is to make sure that the 3rd part gets compensated even if the responsible part isn’t able to pay. But of course they will then try to go after the pilot.
