Share in the expenses are zero. Is this legal?

J

JasonM

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
1,837
Location
West Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
JM
I ran into a younger guy (mid 30's) the other day flying this almost brand new Piper Matrix. I can tell after talking to this guy that he doesn't have any money but His family sure does. He only hold a PP license, so that got me thinking.

He said his dad isn't a pilot and that he bought the Matrix just so he could fly his dad and family around. Bragged about how it didn't cost him a dime and his dad covered all the costs.

Is that legal? Is there exceptions for immediate family when it comes to costs?

Wouldnt this guy as a pilot be required to pay something? part of the fuel atleast? Or is it ok since he isnt charging anything? I'm clueless and mostly jelous. Not going to tattle on him if so. Just curious. :D
 
This is not legal. The son is receiving compensation in the form of free flight time for providing pilot services to his father. The son also lacks common purpose with his father for the father's trips, so even the expense sharing clause of 61.113 is out, as is calling the flying time a gift, since it appears to come with the attached string of taking Dad where he wants to go, when he wants to go (Quid pro quo, Clarisse). However, the FAA is not going to stick its nose in family business without someone shoving it in their face. As long as they don't start taking paying passengers, and Dad doesn't start complaining to the FAA about his son's flying, the FAA isn't going to get involved.
 
I don't know the rule, but I bet he's not the first one to fly a family owned airplane and not pay his share.;) If he's flying his dad and family and they all go to the beach, it's common purpose for sure. I guess the rub might be if he is flying his dad and his business partner to meetings, he is getting compensated with "free flight time". :rolleyes: He could get his commercial and put all speculation to bed. ;)
But, there are several folks who will come along shortly and quote a few regs and give you an actual answer. :rolleyes2:
 
I don't know, the "common purpose" of father/son time in an aircraft owned by the family? I don't see much to get excited about.
 
N747JB said:
I don't know the rule, but I bet he's not the first one to fly a family owned airplane and not pay his share.;) If he's flying his dad and family and they all go to the beach, it's common purpose for sure. I guess the rub might be if he is flying his dad and his business partner to meetings, he is getting compensated with "free flight time". :rolleyes: He could get his commercial and put all speculation to bed. ;)
But, there are several folks who will come along shortly and quote a few regs and give you an actual answer. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

As an heir to his father's interests in the business, he probably has enough common purpose. And his inheritance is being reduced by the flight expense, so to some extent he is sharing the costs. :dunno:
 
Is flight time always seen as a compensation by the FAA?
If I have 50000 hours, and no intention to get any additional certifications, how is 1 extra hour compensation?. If I'm flying someone else's plane for free to take them somewhere, it could be seen more as a favor, and it could potentially be a pain the rear to do. Still, they see it as compensation to me?

And even if you get a commercial license, to keep it legal with the FAA, wouldn't you have to pay taxes on the estimated value of that hour? (or break IRS rules).
 
Their game, their rules.

IRS and FAA regs differ in many areas. This is only one tiny (and monetarily insignificant) example.

Johann said:
Is flight time always seen as a compensation by the FAA?
If I have 50000 hours, and no intention to get any additional certifications, how is 1 extra hour compensation?. If I'm flying someone else's plane for free to take them somewhere, it could be seen more as a favor, and it could potentially be a pain the rear to do. Still, they see it as compensation to me?

And even if you get a commercial license, to keep it legal with the FAA, wouldn't you have to pay taxes on the estimated value of that hour? (or break IRS rules).
Click to expand...
 
My student pilot son flew my wife and I to Athens on Sunday night, he didn't pay a dime towards the cost of the flight, of course I was PIC. Come to think of it my wife didn't contribute either! :D
 
No one is allowed to write the chief counsel as a result of this thread.

I have never heard of the FAA going after someone in a case like this involving immediate family.
 
I have some dead-beat letters left over from days at Conoco credit if you want me to send her one.

N747JB said:
My student pilot son flew my wife and I to Athens on Sunday night, he didn't pay a dime towards the cost of the flight, of course I was PIC. Come to think of it my wife didn't contribute either! :D
Click to expand...
 
Of course Capt Ron is correct with your assumptions. However, The son might work for the fathers family business in which case he may have a common purpose and be legal to fly if it is incidental to his job.

Both my sons worked for my computer business and when I had the Cherokee I encouraged them both to get their PPL on my dime. Including paying for the CFI, gas, plane anything....I guess it was a perk for all employees the other employees only needed replace the fuel and pay their cfi although none of them took me up on it over a 5 year period. Now I sold the Cherokee a year ago and they want to fly now.....too late to do it on dads dime. How do you teach people that there are windows of opportunity that are not always going to exist?

Ron Levy said:
This is not legal. The son is receiving compensation in the form of free flight time for providing pilot services to his father. The son also lacks common purpose with his father for the father's trips, so even the expense sharing clause of 61.113 is out, as is calling the flying time a gift, since it appears to come with the attached string of taking Dad where he wants to go, when he wants to go (Quid pro quo, Clarisse). However, the FAA is not going to stick its nose in family business without someone shoving it in their face. As long as they don't start taking paying passengers, and Dad doesn't start complaining to the FAA about his son's flying, the FAA isn't going to get involved.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I can see where this would/could really get to be wrong if they went after people for this. I'll never have the kind of money it takes to buy my son a $1M plane and pay for all his expenses, but I could see my son one day learning and me covering his expenses in a 172 or such. I honestly had no intention of doing anything with this outcome, rather was just curious if it was ok or not. The idea of it being shared with inheritance makes sense as well.
 
He's not being compensated for flying.

He's being compensated for the love and affection he provides to his parents.

And if anyone writes the Chief Counsel about this, I'm going to find an AR-15 Shotgun...
 
I can see how flight hours could be considered compensation for pilots under 2500 hrs particularly for the guys wanting to get ATP and professional jobs. I can see how that precedent was set but I wonder if anyone who was already achieved an ATP with xx,xxx hrs could modify this precedent with FAA?
 
Looks to me like a close family. What's the difference of letting the kid fly the airplane,or paying his tuition at a college or say a pilot school.
 
Mind you I am still learning, but how I read the rules -- as long as he isn't making a /profit/ on it, its fine. Obviously it would be up to the FAA and lawyers and stuff, but I am guessing there would even be an argument to be made that if you were to fly your friend somewhere and they gave you a place to stay -- not in compensation, but so that you could make the trip at all -- then it would be fine.

I don't know (and I really just want to learn what you guys have to say and what an expert says on it) but I think it's all about intent. If you are running a cheap charter airline which only covers flight expenses and lodging, it would be seen as wrong. If you are taking your friend for a trip to New York and you are overall taking a loss, but they are providing a good portion of your trip... then it should be fine.

Again, I don't know, I am still learning... just giving my interpretation.
 
LDJones said:
I don't know, the "common purpose" of father/son time in an aircraft owned by the family?
Click to expand...
That's not part of the FAA's definition of "common purpose."

I don't see much to get excited about.
Click to expand...
Me, neither. As I said, it's not legal, but the FAA won't get involved unless they start charging others or Dad complains about the son's flying.
 
LDJones said:
As an heir to his father's interests in the business, he probably has enough common purpose.
Click to expand...
Not as the FAA defines it, and if it was a business trip, the Mangiamele interpretation comes into play and no passengers are allowed if they pilot's share is paid by the company.
 
N747JB said:
My student pilot son flew my wife and I to Athens on Sunday night, he didn't pay a dime towards the cost of the flight, of course I was PIC. Come to think of it my wife didn't contribute either! :D
Click to expand...
And as a Student Pilot, he couldn't log it, either, unless you were a CFI giving training. As for your wife, there is no requirement that passengers contribute, only that the pilot pay at least his/her pro rata share. But again, the FAA isn't interested in this.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Of course Capt Ron is correct with your assumptions. However, The son might work for the fathers family business in which case he may have a common purpose and be legal to fly if it is incidental to his job.
Click to expand...
If he does work for the company, and this is a business trip, then the Mangiamele interpretation comes into play and the son cannot be reimbursed for his share of the cost with Dad aboard.
 
JasonM said:
I can see where this would/could really get to be wrong if they went after people for this. I'll never have the kind of money it takes to buy my son a $1M plane and pay for all his expenses, but I could see my son one day learning and me covering his expenses in a 172 or such.
Click to expand...
Covering his training expenses is fine. Buying him flight time to take you places is not legal.
 
JasonM said:
I can see where this would/could really get to be wrong if they went after people for this. I'll never have the kind of money it takes to buy my son a $1M plane and pay for all his expenses, but I could see my son one day learning and me covering his expenses in a 172 or such. I honestly had no intention of doing anything with this outcome, rather was just curious if it was ok or not. The idea of it being shared with inheritance makes sense as well.
Click to expand...

The FAA would rather "Sgt Schultz" this type of thing.... As Ron points out, it's not legal by the letter of the law and the current interpretations, but if you went into the FSDO with this, the dude would do a double face palm and hope you were gone when he looked up again.
 
This is one of those hypotheticals that never really become a problem in real life.

Dad needs to be sure that Son is on the insurance policy, and then hand son the keys to the plane.
 
Similarly, was it technically illegal for my parents to pay for my college tuition for my Professional Pilot degree? I'm guessing yes, as in the OPs case, but Never once heard of the FAA caring about it one bit.



JeffDG said:
AR-15 Shotgun...
Click to expand...
:rofl: Damn lame-stream media... :mad2:
 
JeffDG said:
He's not being compensated for flying.
He's being compensated for the love and affection he provides to his parents.
Click to expand...
The FAA will not buy that argument. This is a clear quid pro quo -- free flying time in return for piloting Dad's airplane. But as long as they don't bother anyone else, the FAA won't care.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I can see how flight hours could be considered compensation for pilots under 2500 hrs particularly for the guys wanting to get ATP and professional jobs. I can see how that precedent was set but I wonder if anyone who was already achieved an ATP with xx,xxx hrs could modify this precedent with FAA?
Click to expand...
The pilot in the Bobertz memo had an ATP. Busted anyway.
 
frfly172 said:
Looks to me like a close family. What's the difference of letting the kid fly the airplane,or paying his tuition at a college or say a pilot school.
Click to expand...
The fact that the father is getting something of clear monetary value in return -- a pilot to fly him where and when he wants to go. The things you mention do not have direct monetary value to the father.
 
teamcoltra said:
Mind you I am still learning, but how I read the rules -- as long as he isn't making a /profit/ on it, its fine.
Click to expand...
Profit is not the issue -- compensation is. The son is getting free flying time (something of considerable value) in return for providing pilot services to his father. That is strictly prohibited for Private Pilots by 61.113.

Obviously it would be up to the FAA and lawyers and stuff, but I am guessing there would even be an argument to be made that if you were to fly your friend somewhere and they gave you a place to stay -- not in compensation, but so that you could make the trip at all -- then it would be fine.
Click to expand...
The FAA normally doesn't get into who paid the bill at the other end as long as the airplane bill was paid by he pilot. But if there's a clear barter involved, and a complaint is made (say, by the friend who at the end of the trip feels he was cheated), the pilot is toast.

I don't know (and I really just want to learn what you guys have to say and what an expert says on it) but I think it's all about intent.
Click to expand...
Intent is not the issue -- quid pro quo is. As the German author wrote, "First, there was the deed."


If you are running a cheap charter airline which only covers flight expenses and lodging, it would be seen as wrong. If you are taking your friend for a trip to New York and you are overall taking a loss, but they are providing a good portion of your trip... then it should be fine.
Click to expand...
As long as you pay your pro rata share of the direct expenses, and you have common purpose for the flight, the FAA is OK with it. The problems occur when, as in the OP's scenario, the pilot pays nothing, and has no common purpose (his own reason for going to that destination on that day) for the flight.

Again, I don't know, I am still learning... just giving my interpretation.
Click to expand...
Go to the FAA legal interpretation site and look up "common purpose" and 61.113. You'll learn a lot.
 
Henning said:
The FAA would rather "Sgt Schultz" this type of thing.... As Ron points out, it's not legal by the letter of the law and the current interpretations, but if you went into the FSDO with this, the dude would do a double face palm and hope you were gone when he looked up again.
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair assessment.
 
Phew. Hope y'all learned from this -- both what the law is, and that the FAA's prime interest is protecting the public, not getting into family business that doesn't affect anyone outside the family.
 
teamcoltra said:
Mind you I am still learning, but how I read the rules -- as long as he isn't making a /profit/ on it, its fine. Obviously it would be up to the FAA and lawyers and stuff, but I am guessing there would even be an argument to be made that if you were to fly your friend somewhere and they gave you a place to stay -- not in compensation, but so that you could make the trip at all -- then it would be fine.

I don't know (and I really just want to learn what you guys have to say and what an expert says on it) but I think it's all about intent. If you are running a cheap charter airline which only covers flight expenses and lodging, it would be seen as wrong. If you are taking your friend for a trip to New York and you are overall taking a loss, but they are providing a good portion of your trip... then it should be fine.

Again, I don't know, I am still learning... just giving my interpretation.
Click to expand...

No profit required, not even compensation, just consideration. The USCG used to be even worse on this with boating. If you didn't have a USCG license to run your boat, you had to provide everything, sodas, beer, chips.... Again, not enforced, but when rulings came out, that's the way they read. Much of that changed a few years back though.
 
bartmc said:
Yeah, he's required to pay for 100% of the flight. But his income is derived from his dad giving it to him. if he wants to save his dad some money :D, he can split the time with him because the common purpose is for a father and son to spend time together.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the duck is quacking too loud on this one to say the father is giving the kid free flying time and then the kid is independently giving his father free piloting where the father wants, when the father wants -- remember, it's not the kid's plane. The FAA won't get involved in this family deal unless someone rubs their nose in it, but if it were not a family thing, the pilot would be toast if the FAA heard about it.

Well, maybe not toast if it were all innocent, but he'd at least be "counseled" on the error of his ways, and told if it happened again, they'd warm up the broiler.
 
This is incredibly easy to get around for the father/son. The father can gift the plane to the son. Not an issue at all. Or, have the aircraft owned by a business. The father+mother can gift $28K/yr to the son tax/question free to pay for...whatever. The son could have ownership shares in the family business providing substantial dividends to the son. There's no need for Richie Rich's dad to be paying a flying bill "directly".
 
JeffDG said:
He's not being compensated for flying.

He's being compensated for the love and affection he provides to his parents.

And if anyone writes the Chief Counsel about this, I'm going to find an AR-15 Shotgun...
Click to expand...

No kidding what in heck is so wrong with a son who is helping out his parents? So you have guys flying around with expired medicals and no licenses but for some reason this kid is in error?
 
LJS1993 said:
No kidding what in heck is so wrong with a son who is helping out his parents? So you have guys flying around with expired medicals and no licenses but for some reason this kid is in error?
Click to expand...

It's the way the rules are written. As has been said and reiterated, the FAA is not going after this kind of thing, but unless you want to add three pages to a three sentence rule, this happens. When the kid gets his Commercial certificate and a Second Class medical, the plane can be in dad's or the company's name, and he can hire the kid to be the company or his personal pilot. Until then though, a Private Pilot cannot receive consideration for flying and must pay their pro rate share of the cost and can only collect when there is a common purpose for the flight.
 
Were you the class snitch in high school? sheeesh

First, it is family.
No court will attack the family unit.
Nor will the FSDO or FAA lawyers if they have half a brain.

Over the past three years I have put two million dollars into a new business (which includes a plane).
My son has put in zero (because he has zero).
He gets to drive/fly around in expensive machines, sign contracts ordering a $100K of chemicals delivered, all without paying any of the bills.
Does that mean he is getting compensation?

The answer is that it is no ones &^(*$! business but ours and the IRS.

As far as 'your' friend (you sure aren't his) he is allowed to fly Part 91 in pursuit of business and personal interests without it being considered compensation, or considered holding himself out for hire.
All this is settled rulings by FAA counsel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top