61.113 and expense reimbursements

On 2007-11-19 10:38:57 -0800, Ron Garret said:

I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?

rg

Probably not if you are flying by yourself. Questionable if you are
carrying passengers or property on behalf of the company.

Contrary to what others have said, the FAA has been fairly consistent
in their opinions. There is no reason a company cannot reimburse you
for incidental personal transportation expenses. However, carrying
passengers or property for hire must be as a commercial pilot. This is
why companies hire commercial pilots to fly their corporate aircraft.
So carrying passengers or property would probably be considered a
violation.

There are liability issues as well. If there were an accident and you
were carrying these passengers and receiving more than your pro-rata
reimbursement for them, then an insurance company or a tort lawyer
would certainly argue that you were conducting a commercial operation.

Finally, of course, there are Federal Income Tax questions. There may
be some limits there for how much the company can reimburse you.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

I think the 50% was just made up and repeated.
Expenses for a trip that can be shared by a private pilot generally are
limited to aircraft expenses. Such things a rental cars and hotels are not
considered. A private pilot who is an salesman can take sales literature
and merchandise.

Most companies and the IRS will limit reimbursements to a standard car
mileage rate.

A CPA/attorney and consultation with the FAA in your region would be a good
idea before you make the flights.



"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| "Neil Gould" wrote:
|
| WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
| the pro rata share is $1.
|
| pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
| adv.
| In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
|
| Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account for
| the 50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate exactly"
| 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private pilot pays,
then
| the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid compensation.
|
| where is this "50%" requirement?
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
|

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, BT posted:

As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the
cost of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if
someone has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you, they
don't have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.

Neil

As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro rata
share of the cost of the flight.
50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example
was three others.

Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the
expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental
fees.

So, the 50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot
must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors
there are.

Neil

WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
the pro rata share is $1.

pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
adv.
In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.

Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account
for the 50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate
exactly" 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private
pilot pays, then the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid
compensation.

As long as the private pilot must pay 50% of the cost of the flight,
the sum of all other contributions can't exceed that amount. Now, if
someone can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to
pay 50% of the cost of a flight except under the remaining 61.113
guidelines, that is a different matter. However, such a notion would
make 61.113 (c) moot, so it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

Neil
Who will continue to pay 50% of the cost of the flight.

I just went back a reread all of 61.113. No where can I find the phrase
"greater than 50%" or even 50%. 61.113 (c) as written above is the only part
of the regulation that discusses splitting of costs of flight among the
passengers of a PPL piloted aircraft.

Since there is no definition of "pro rata" in the FAR definition section we
must assume that pro rata is meant to be the common usage which means, as
I've written above, In proportion, according to a factor that can be
calculated exactly. In this case the factor that can be calculated exactly
is the number of passengers.

Now in the case of a plane rented wet it is easy (Rental price + airport
fees)/pax. If on the other hand I'm in my plane and I know the cost of
flying includes things like overhaul and maintenance prepaids I have to
deduct those before I do the math as the regulation specifically says that I
can only pro rata the fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fee.

I'm curious where you get the 51% rule?

On Nov 21, 10:35 am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

So, the 50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot
must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors
there are.

WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
the pro rata share is $1.

pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
adv.
In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.

Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account for
the 50% requirement.

What "generalized application"? He's just pointing out what the term
means; your interpretation contradicts its meaning.

And what "50% requirement"? Where do you see such a requirement in
the FARs?

Now, if someone
can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to pay 50% of
the cost of a flight

The only "support" needed is the observation that no such requirement
appears in the FARs. Instead, there is a clear *pro rata* requirement.

However, such a notion would make 61.113 (c) moot, so
it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?

You're asserting an imaginary requirement, and defending it with an
imaginary criterion of mootness.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 10:35 am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

However, such a notion would make 61.113 (c) moot, so
it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?

You're asserting an imaginary requirement, and defending it with an
imaginary criterion of mootness.

If you believe a private pilot cannot receive free or reduced cost flying
time, such as the examples argued in the "ferry flight" thread, it's ALL
moot!

What if Jerry, Kelly and Sam are not employees of the same company?



On Nov 20, 12:19 am, "RST Engineering"
wrote:
Let's cut through the horse****.

I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let that
go for the moment).

My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS mileage
(48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle. Vehicle is
automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I choose.

The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many other
employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5 cents a mile.

I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to the
conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a company
employee while I am at the conference.

I get home without incident.

I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and multiply
it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case closed.

I have an accident on the way to or the way from the conference. Let the
lawyers sort it out. I was on company time; let the company lawyers decide
fault and such.

The FARs have relatively little to do with the process. You aren't being
paid to fly; you are being recompensated for getting yourself to the
conference and participating.

Then again, I've only been doing this for forty years, but what do I know?

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

On Nov 21, 3:06 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, posted:

Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?

If the actual calculation doesn't matter -- e.g. it could be 1% or 99% as
long as it can be "calculated precisely" -- then the FAR has no regulatory
power. How could one *not* meet the requirement if one has a calculator?
That is why I wrote that it would be moot.

Ok, thanks, I understand your point now. But you've missed the
essential meaning of "pro rata": it refers to a *proportionate* share,
not just any old calculated share. Hence, among four people, each
one's pro rata share would be 25%--not 1% or 99% or 50%.

In some specialized circumstances, pro rata amounts are not evenly
divided according to the number of people, but rather by some other
calculable criterion, such as the number of shares of a corporation
owned by each person. But by default, if you speak of a pro rata
distrubution among N people, you're referring to 1/Nth apiece, unless
a substitute criterion (such as corportate shares) is specified or
obvious.

Neil Gould wrote:
Yes, but that usage renders 61.113 (c) meaningless without some
additional parameters. One can calculate many things precisely, even
without the use of a calculator. ;-) That might not guarantee
compliance with the FARs.


Pro Rata means a specific thing. It is well defined in law and common usage.
In 61.113 (c)the regulation is quite clear. A pilot may not pay less that
his pro rata share of the allowable expenses.


Now in the case of a plane rented wet it is easy (Rental price +
airport fees)/pax. If on the other hand I'm in my plane and I know
the cost of flying includes things like overhaul and maintenance
prepaids I have to deduct those before I do the math as the
regulation specifically says that I can only pro rata the fuel, oil,
airport expenditures and rental fee.

The cost of maintenance etc. is typically factored into a rental fee.
But, I think the purpose of 61.113 is to set guidelines for what might
constitute compensation. You and other travel to a work site, they can
share the cost of fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees.
They can't pay you for the use of your plane and have you ferry them
about, so the closer the financing looks like that's what is going
on, the more likely one is to violating the FARs.


The purpose of 61.113 (c) is to set the items than can be shared pro rata
among a private pilot and his passengers. And it does it very well.



I'm curious where you get the 51% rule?

As has been mentioned by others, the 50% figure has been taught and
tossed around for quite a while. I don't know if its origin is
formal, was established by precedence, or just common practice. I
would be happy to find out that my company could pay the entire cost
of a flight without it becoming an issue of compensation, but that
seems a long shot unless someone can show evidence that it is an
acceptable practice. Do you know of any such evidence?

Neil


Not a long shot at all. Just read 61.113 (b). Not only can the company pick
up the tab they can pay you while you are doing it.

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, BT posted:

As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the
cost of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if
someone has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you,
they don't have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.

Neil

As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro
rata share of the cost of the flight.
50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example
was three others.

Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the
expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental
fees.

So, the 50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private
pilot must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many
contributors there are.

Neil

WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are
100 the pro rata share is $1.

pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
adv.
In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.

Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account
for the 50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate
exactly" 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private
pilot pays, then the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid
compensation.

As long as the private pilot must pay 50% of the cost of the flight,
the sum of all other contributions can't exceed that amount. Now, if
someone can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to
pay 50% of the cost of a flight except under the remaining 61.113
guidelines, that is a different matter. However, such a notion would
make 61.113 (c) moot, so it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

Neil
Who will continue to pay 50% of the cost of the flight.

I just went back a reread all of 61.113. No where can I find the
phrase "greater than 50%" or even 50%. 61.113 (c) as written above is
the only part of the regulation that discusses splitting of costs of
flight among the passengers of a PPL piloted aircraft.

Since there is no definition of "pro rata" in the FAR definition
section we must assume that pro rata is meant to be the common usage
which means, as I've written above, In proportion, according to a
factor that can be calculated exactly. In this case the factor that
can be calculated exactly is the number of passengers.

Yes, but that usage renders 61.113 (c) meaningless without some additional
parameters. One can calculate many things precisely, even without the use
of a calculator. ;-) That might not guarantee compliance with the FARs.

Now in the case of a plane rented wet it is easy (Rental price +
airport fees)/pax. If on the other hand I'm in my plane and I know
the cost of flying includes things like overhaul and maintenance
prepaids I have to deduct those before I do the math as the
regulation specifically says that I can only pro rata the fuel, oil,
airport expenditures and rental fee.

The cost of maintenance etc. is typically factored into a rental fee. But,
I think the purpose of 61.113 is to set guidelines for what might
constitute compensation. You and other travel to a work site, they can
share the cost of fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees. They
can't pay you for the use of your plane and have you ferry them about, so
the closer the financing looks like that's what is going on, the more
likely one is to violating the FARs.

I'm curious where you get the 51% rule?

As has been mentioned by others, the 50% figure has been taught and
tossed around for quite a while. I don't know if its origin is formal, was
established by precedence, or just common practice. I would be happy to
find out that my company could pay the entire cost of a flight without it
becoming an issue of compensation, but that seems a long shot unless
someone can show evidence that it is an acceptable practice. Do you know
of any such evidence?

Neil

Recently, posted:

Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?

If the actual calculation doesn't matter -- e.g. it could be 1% or 99% as
long as it can be "calculated precisely" -- then the FAR has no regulatory
power. How could one *not* meet the requirement if one has a calculator?
That is why I wrote that it would be moot.

Neil