Another Blow to Canadian aviation!

[Prodriver]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse! Another stomach punch to industry and the business community. Just give me my Red book!

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... e-aircraft

[cgzro]

Don't they already do the same thing with company cars? I.e. using it becomes a taxable benefit? So why should some poor salesperson who uses their company car for personal use get dinged with a taxable benefit when a CEO of a company flying their family around does not?

Or is the complaint with the value of the benefit being calculated based on first class ticket prices. I can see the argument that cramming a family into the company Lear is more akin to Rouge economy value than A.C first ;)

[tired of the ground]

I think the main complaint is that the government is taxing something that has no actual associated cost. Assuming the trip was happening anyways, the CEO having has his wife on board doesn't cost anyone anything despite there being an obvious benefit. Using the company car analogy, it would be akin to charging the salesman taxi fare if his wife came along on a sales call. The same amount of money was spent regardless of the spouse being in the vehicle.


I fully support taxation on vacation/personal trips. Actual costs plus a percentage of capital costs seems fair to me. If you're in this game you probably wouldn't even notice the change. I don't, however, think charging a few grand to have a spouse on a trip makes any sense.

[Heliian]

OMG it will send our industry into the abyss like never before!!

Really though, pay up or get out, I don't care, they obviously thought that too many people were taking advantage of the previous scheme. What is the percentage of canadian aviation effected?

[schnitzel2k3]

The only people this is hurting are companies and individuals without an accounting and legal department backing them up.

Those guys are clever.

S.

[rigpiggy]

Just how much did trudeau pay for his holiday? Sauce for the goose.

[digits_]

I think the main complaint is that the government is taxing something that has no actual associated cost. Assuming the trip was happening anyways, the CEO having has his wife on board doesn't cost anyone anything despite there being an obvious benefit. Using the company car analogy, it would be akin to charging the salesman taxi fare if his wife came along on a sales call. The same amount of money was spent regardless of the spouse being in the vehicle.

And how are they going to prove that? Unless it is an international flight with customs paperwork, it's going to be pretty hard to prove who was on board. Or maybe some passengers will be missing from the manifests. Interesting...

[DanWEC]

You'll just see a lot of spouses listed as consultants or assistants. Silly. Sounds like somebody writing policy was told to start writing more policy!

[oldncold]

Your minister of finance Bill.morneau@parl.gc.ca let him have a piece of your mind on the moron that wrote up this policy.
They already tax the purchace tax the fuel and 2 other levels of gov't tax the buildings theyare stored in and starting in Jan the carbon they omit.

[trey kule]

Really though, pay up or get out, I don't care, they obviously thought that too many people were taking advantage of the previous scheme. What is the percentage of canadian avia

Or........they may obviously be desparate to find a another new revenue source for thos people we call government to spend as they wish. And, obviously you do not tax the poor....they have no money! So you go after taxes from a group that no one will have any sympathy for and can, in the governments' eyes, pay up.

It is not only a blow to aviation, but another nail in the coffin that will eventually not end well for Canada. There is a limit to taxation and sovereign debt,

[Broken Slinky]

The only people this is hurting are companies and individuals without an accounting and legal department backing them up.

Those guys are clever.

S.

You'll just see a lot of spouses listed as consultants or assistants. Silly. Sounds like somebody writing policy was told to start writing more policy!

Yeah, there's so many creative ways to get around this. Whoever owns "corporate use" aircraft and doesn't pay an accountant to work the angles is a fool and deserves to get pinched.

[Heliian]

The CBAA is making a big stink over this but they just closed for input so it could be another year or two before it takes effect. And yes, if you want to be a big shot with a big jet you're going to have to pay. If these companies are being successful in Canada then they can be taxed in Canada. Again, don't like it, go make your money somewhere else and skirt someone else's tax laws.

[oldncold]

It's not just the jets. It every airplane a corp has big or small example a family farm own a smal twin or turbine single. He/she flys from rural can to the city for a weekend cattle sale brings his spouse along. She goes shopping in the city unrelated to his purpose of the trip. Bang pony up. If the farm is acorporation bingo. Tax it. If moves tax it more. The cattlemans association should send the govt a strong message that this is unacceptable.

[Broken Slinky]

It's not just the jets. It every airplane a corp has big or small example a family farm own a smal twin or turbine single. He/she flys from rural can to the city for a weekend cattle sale brings his spouse along. She goes shopping in the city unrelated to his purpose of the trip. Bang pony up. If the farm is acorporation bingo. Tax it. If moves tax it more. The cattlemans association should send the govt a strong message that this is unacceptable.

I get your concept oldncold but I'd bet the vast majority of family farms have the spouse on the company payroll. Not trying to sound sexist but being a farm boy myself, I know of very few wives who are not serving meals or running to town to get a part while her husband wrenches on the combine, etc...

[photofly]

He/she flys from rural can to the city for a weekend cattle sale brings his spouse along. She goes shopping in the city unrelated to his purpose of the trip. Bang pony up.

And so they should. Are you saying people who farm cattle shouldn't pay tax?

I keep a light aircraft, and when I fly my wife and my family it's all paid for out of taxed income. Why should others not flying for business purposes have a better deal than I get?

[oldncold]

The point being is this : you are flying rthe plane in after tax $. Then come Jan. 1 the govt wants to. Tax you on purpose of trip. Omg. It doesn't matter if your plane is 100 k Cessna or a 20mill jet you worked frickn hard to get and any ceolarge or small is workn 60 + hour weeks ergo you have every frickn right to enjoy a little personal time with whomever you chose using it. The govt does every thing to discourge increased productivity. End of rant

[Prodriver]

I already know of two Jets being moved to US reg as we speaker over this and the 604 crap. This kind of of red tape and Socialism is going to cause an unprecedented amount of capital flight and your going to have more in common with that Syrian's on TV than you ever thought possible. My advice is you better get a Government Job!!

I'm buying Pot stock, as it looks like a good bet, as Canadians will consume lots too numb the pain of the next decade! Sad when that it not electronics, aviation, energy exports or Hydro, just Pot that is our next big growth opportunity!

To the earlier post that thinks this is a great equalizer, your wrong if you think it won't effect you, your flying hobby or your own family and there careers, unless you are a bureaucrat. Those people in Jet's deploy and control capital that creates jobs. That is how the first world works and the rule of law keeps it spread around pretty good I would say.

For god's sakes, we are already past 50% personal tax w/ consumption and Carbon tax taken into account and the people that I deal with can't take much more!

Sorry for the rant, but this shit is pissing me off...I don't want to be a socialist comrade.

[confusedalot]

What to expect from career public servants. They live in a world where money falls from trees and if it does not, just tax more so the money keeps falling from the sky. Corrupt system indeed.

I left the place out of disgust.

[bobcaygeon]

Are the Aeroplan points collected travelling on government business a taxable benefit for public servants? What about if those points are used for someone other than themselves for recreation?

Sorry but kicking small business in the head is not the way to keep this country moving forward.

[photofly]

The point being is this : you are flying rthe plane in after tax $.

If you're flying the plane on your own after-tax dollars, then, since your paying for the flight yourself, there's no change.

If your company is paying for the flight then it's pre-tax dollars being used because the cost of the flight is a company expense reducing its profit and reducing the tax paid on the profit.

The purpose of taxing the benefit of the flight to the beneficiary is to convert it back to post-tax dollars, as it would be if you got your wallet out to book any old non-business flight. Which is where it should be.