In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:42:22 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It
clarifies the 50% notion that I've been taught, but it seems to make
the regulation rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to
the application of "pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in the
aircraft or number of club members). If the FAA agrees with this usage
then the matter is settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the
precedence of such as free ferrying to be considered "compensation".

The following web page titled "Traps For The Unwary: Business Flying
And The 'Compensation Or Hire' Rule" discusses "pro rata" issues, among
others (such as the judicial invention of the "common purpose" test):

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html

It's too bad that article does not discuss the premise of the OP's
situation -- that of an employee flying himself, and possibly some other
employees, to a business meeting which he, and they, would be attending
anyway; and being reimbursed for that trip.
--ron

Exactly. The problem here is the precise meaning of the word
"compensation" and whether or not compensation is distinct from
"reimbursement." There are two ways to look at the situation. One is
that I paid the entire cost of the flight and was reimbursed for a
travel expense. The second is that the company paid the entire cost of
the trip and therefore I did not meet the "pro-rata share" requirement.

rg