IRS to Kickoff Audit Campaign Focused on Business Aircraft Users
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
Individual and corporate taxpayers that improperly reported personal aircraft use as business use may face increased taxable income and penalties and/or denial of deductions.
Key takeaway #2
Corporate taxpayers that allocated the affiliated individual’s use of the corporate jet as business use may be denied deduction of such use.
Key takeaway #3
Taxpayers may wish to preemptively audit the prior deductions and, if the target of an IRS audit, seek advice from tax professionals with specific expertise in business aviation tax and IRS audits.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.29.24
Last week, the IRS announced plans to begin a campaign to audit personal use of business aircraft. The audits will focus on whether large corporations, partnerships and high-and ultra-high net worth aircraft owners have properly reported their business and personal aircraft usage for tax purposes, with a particular focus on ensuring that owners are only taking deductions to which they are entitled. Given the value of an aircraft, the amount of a deduction for aircraft related expenditures on a given taxpayer’s return can be in the tens of millions of dollars, and with more than 10,000 corporate jets operating in the U.S., IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel recognized that much is at stake with this campaign. The audit campaign is expected to focus initially on multinational and domestic corporations and complex partnerships but is expected to expand from there.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
