Bathman wrote:
But that’s not how the UK CAA interpret it.
I think CAA’s point was that if you are an LTD, then you are a commercial company and could you the a/c for commercial training, for example.
If you create a non-profit that owns a plane, then what is the problem?
In the UK, there is no point* in having the plane under a Ltd Co if you are the only person flying it – unless the plane is owned by your main business and used exclusively for business travel.
The main use of a Ltd Co is for a syndicate, as a mutual liability protection, re the UK Civil Aviation Act joint and several provisions.
I recall some syndicates using a Limited Partnership (LLP) to get around this issue. Maybe @howard may know more.
* well, not quite… using a Ltd Co avoids the CAA listing your full name and address on the G-INFO public database 
but still the names and addresses of Ltd Co officials are trivial to discover, unless you go one further and use a trust.
Peter wrote:
I recall some syndicates using a Limited Partnership (LLP) to get around this issue. Maybe @howard may know more.
Hello @Peter . I am not sure what you think I might know more about: I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about plane maintenance or UK plane regulation to follow the thread above, prior to your post. Sorry.
Firstly, I think we’re talking about Limited Liability Partnerships here (LLPs – in common use) and not Limited Partnerships (LPs – not in common use). LLPs and LPs are entirely different types of entities, albeit with similar names. (I won’t explain here.)
A few points that may or may not be relevant to the above thread: LLPs, whilst still offering “separate legal personality” protection for the members, can be seen as more flexible than UK limited companies when it comes to changes in ownership (for LLPs no actual share capital exists to change hands or be registered at Companies House) and no UK benefit-in-kind tax returns usually needs to be made if a member of an LLP makes private use of an LLP’s asset (such as a plane) – because an LLP is a see-through entity for UK tax purposes as far as the members (owners) of the LLP are concerned. So those kinds of flexibility might be very helpful in some circumstances. On the other hand, LLPs are a UK entity type that seems generally to be rather poorly understood except by accountants and lawyers, perhaps because some aspects (such as the foregoing) are more than a little unusual and complex. I do understand. Moreover, the accounts for an LLP are more complex than for a limited company. I also see some LLP agreements (the fundamental and necessary private legal agreement that regulates the members’ relations with each other) that are so poorly drawn up that the members of the LLPs lose their limited liability protection…which is crazy really, but sadly true, so IMO professional advice is always required when setting up an LLP, but people seem much happier setting up a limited company (which they understand more readily) without taking advice…which may or may not be sensible.
If the above doesn’t answer the relevant points in this thread, I’ll happily provide further input if I feel able to properly opine.
Howard
The rules don’t say “closed to the public”
I read some EASA guidance that used this wording.
Snoopy wrote:
I read some EASA guidance that used this wording.
Ok, but even so that problems is very easily solved (as far as flight instruction is concerned) by setting up a membership scheme.
Thanks @Howard.
Yes in the UK the LLP would be used instead of a LTD to avoid the BIK (benefit in kind) tax hit. I am not aware of any other reason.
Whether the CAA would treat an LLP differently to a LTD I have no idea. I wonder if anybody tried it?
It’s an interesting topic outside the UK too because every “modern” country must have similar BIK rules – otherwise everybody with 2 or more braincells would put all their expenditure “through the firm” and claim it as expenses. Buy a teapot for £10, depreciate it 40% a year, and pay £4 less income tax in the first year But maybe in other countries their “BIK” is not triggered by the simple act of running a Ltd Co as it is triggered in the UK. The challenge, as usual, will be to get someone from mainland Europe to contribute their country’s approach…
by setting up a membership scheme
Not sure if that would work in every country, due to different local CAA interpretations.
Otherwise, not a problem for PPL training because you cannot do it outside an ATO, so forcing every student to “join” is easy.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Ok, but even so that problems is very easily solved (as far as flight instruction is concerned) by setting up a membership scheme.
But doesn’t solve the Owner Pilot Maintenance issue
The problem is
if the plane is owned via some company (be it with „memberships“ or without) instead of natural persons = no owner pilot maintenance.
If the plane is owned by a club… it works
a member of a non-profit recreational legal entity, where the legal entity is specified on the registration document as owner or operator; that member must be directly involved in the decision-making process of the legal entity and designated by that legal entity to carry out Pilot-owner maintenance
Not happy about this, I’d like to have a plane in some Ltd. and still do Limited Owner P M.
Peter wrote:
But maybe in other countries their “BIK” is not triggered by the simple act of running a Ltd Co as it is triggered in the UK. The challenge, as usual, will be to get someone from mainland Europe to contribute their country’s approach…Regarding Ltd-s , here in Estonia the government is mainly interested in 2 things- VAT (and all over 1000EUR payments have to be reported each month) + employment taxes. In practice it means that if you only paying yourself dividends ,but no salary ,you’ll be in the radar fairly quickly.. If you have a normal salary and some Ltd, nobody especially cares what the Ltd is doing, as long as you don’t fk with VAT. Cars are a special case- if you want to use your company car for private travel, you have to pay 100-300 EUR/month BIK.. This was established about 5 years ago and resulted selling a lot of cheaper to midrange company cars to owners.. With < 50GA planes in country , most of which are at least to some extent available for flight training or rent, its just impractical to chase some owner getting some taxfree flying for themselves.. Personally I invoice myself for about half of my flights :)
