Holland & Knight - Corporate Jet Practice Brochure by Holland & Knight

Holland & Knight’s

Corporate Jet Practice Select Articles on Planning and Transactions October 2026 www.hklaw.com

Table of Contents Introduction to Holland & Knight’s Corporate Jet Practice............................................................................................1

Current Hot Topics Bonus Depreciation Updates Post-Second Inauguration.......................................4 IRS Recordkeeping Essentials for Aircraft Owners: The Keys to a Turbulence-Free IRS Audit...............................................................6 From Runway to Resolution: Accelerating Aircraft Tax Disputes with Fast Track Settlement.......................................................................9

Tax Planning IRS Audits and the Emerging Role of AI in Enforcement......................................13 The Family Office: Planning for Private Aircraft Assets........................................14 Private Aircraft Commuting: Personal Flights in Business Clothing....................................................................16

Aircraft Transactions Comparing and Contrasting Domestic vs. Cross-Border Aviation Finance Transactions...............................................................................19 Closing the Deal: Getting Cross-Border Business Aviation Transactions Done Right.........................................................................20 Placing Your Aircraft with a Charter-Management Company...............................23

Practice Overview and Resources Private and Business Aircraft.................................................................................26 Primary Contacts...................................................................................................27

Holland & Knight

Introduction to

Holland & Knight’s Corporate Jet Practice Business aircraft are high-value, high-visibility assets, and the legal issues surrounding their acquisition, financing and operation are often complex. Holland & Knight’s aviation attorneys located in the U.S. and United Kingdom have broad experience representing public companies, high-networth individuals, family offices, financial institutions and air-taxi operators. With one of the largest aviation practices in the U.S., Holland & Knight can bring a multidisciplinary approach to address the complexities of business aircraft acquisition and operations.

Aircraft Transactions: For many owners and operators of business aircraft, buying and selling aircraft is not their primary business, and they rely on our team to facilitate the deal. Our primary objective in every deal is to protect your interests. This means more than just properly planning and documenting the transaction. It means developing creative solutions and quickly shepherding a deal to closure, particularly in the used-aircraft market, where delays can jeopardize a transaction. Structuring Ownership and Operation: Given the costs and potential exposures involved in owning and operating business aircraft, establishing and maintaining a proper structure is critical. Our team will work with your in-house counsel and accountants to determine an optimal structure that addresses the complex regulatory and tax issues that can arise, including structuring private aircraft operations to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.

Introduction to Holland & Knight’s Corporate Jet Practice | CO NT I NUED

FAA Issues

Tax Issues

With a client base that spans the breadth of the aviation industry, our team represents not only business aircraft owners and operators, but also airlines, leasing companies, corporate jet companies, aircraft manufacturers, charter companies and other related businesses in an array of economic, legislative, safety and international aviation regulatory matters, including:

Our aviation tax attorneys have in-depth knowledge of the unique tax issues that arise in the initial procurement and structuring of a aircraft acquisition and during the course of aircraft ownership, including:

advising on FAA regulations and guidance on dry-leasing arrangements, joint ownership, timesharing agreements and similar issues related to structuring and cost sharing for private aircraft operations by companies and family offices representing clients seeking air carrier or foreign air carrier authority from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) advising on foreign ownership issues related to carriers and aircraft ownership handling DOT/FAA investigations and penalty matters

federal tax planning, including the use of bonus depreciation, passive loss rules, hobby loss limitations, commuting rules and federal excise tax issues state sales and use-tax planning during the acquisition and structuring phase state and federal tax audits related to aviation operations and assets tax controversies involving national and local IRS offices, as well as state and local tax agencies invaluable experience gained as senior executives in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, U.S. Department of Justice’s Tax Division and Office of Dispute Resolution, as well as the DOT’s Accident Investigation Division Holland & Knight’s aviation lawyers have in-depth experience in aviation-related dispute resolution, insurance issues and accident investigations, advising aviation clients, including manufacturers and operators, in National Transportation Safety Board investigations and in defending those clients in tort actions arising out of aircraft accidents, as well as representing aviation clients on a range of commercial disputes in state and federal courts and in arbitration.

Financing Holland & Knight’s aircraft finance lawyers work with prominent players in every sector of aviation finance, including most major airlines and leasing companies, major banks and private equity funds. We regularly act on novel and high-profile transactions and have deep familiarity with the ever-evolving structures and products used in the industry. We routinely represent borrowers and lessees acquiring business aircraft and know how to move finance deals quickly to closing.

Holland & Knight

London Office and International Capability

Unique Issues for Business Aviation Operations

Holland & Knight’s London office regularly handles business aviation matters worldwide. The Business Aviation Team has vast experience handling cross-border business aircraft transactions representing owners, air carriers and financial institutions in both commercial and business aircraft transactions, including:

Whether drafting a corporate aircraft usage policy or answering one-time questions, our business lawyers can draw on the broad legal resources within our firm to address any legal concern, including matters that are unique to business aviation operations. For example, we frequently advise clients on:

representing high-net-worth individuals and private and public companies in private aircraft transactions, structuring of the acquisition and ownership structure of such deals; regulatory issues affecting private aircraft, such as requirements regarding cost sharing; negotiation of management and charter agreements; and aircraft operations, such as the optimization of liability protection integrating aviation regulatory advice with a broad-based understanding of business and government affairs to deliver wellrounded counsel to clients; our team has advised on matters before the U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority and Department for Transport representing clients in aviation and travelrelated dispute resolution matters, often with multijurisdictional elements, in English courts and arbitrations

Family Offices. Structuring aircraft or aircraft shares ownership and operation for families and developing bespoke structures to meet family objectives Fractional Programs. Advising clients on fractional share acquisition and other alternatives to whole-aircraft ownership Corporate Aircraft Usage Policies. Drafting corporate use policies to cover personal use, carriage of political candidates, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reporting and related issues Political Candidates. Providing advice on state and federal election laws, aviation regulations for private operators, and tax implications of flying candidates and government officials Customs/Export and KYC Issues. Advising on export, customs and know your customer (KYC) diligence that arises in cross-border aircraft transactions

Corporate Jet Practice

Bonus Depreciation Updates Post-Second Inauguration By Logan Evan Gans and Andrew M. Piper The landscape for bonus depreciation has shifted significantly following the legislative actions enacted during President Donald Trump’s second term. These changes, effective as of January 20, 2025, have direct implications for owners and operators of business aircraft, as well as for high-net-worth individuals and corporations seeking to optimize tax planning strategies.

Overview of Bonus Depreciation Bonus depreciation allows taxpayers to immediately deduct a substantial percentage of the purchase price of eligible business assets, including new and used aircraft, in the year the asset is placed in service. This accelerated depreciation is a powerful tool for managing taxable income and cash flow, particularly in capital-intensive sectors such as business aviation. I.R.C. § 168(k).

Holland & Knight

Key Legislative Changes: OBBB and TCJA Originally, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permitted 100 percent bonus depreciation for qualified property – including aircraft – acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023, with the original phasedown schedule reducing the bonus depreciation percentage by 20 points each year after 2022 and the deduction finally sunsetting in 2026. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), signed into law on July 4, 2025, reversed the phasedown and permanently reinstated 100 percent bonus depreciation for qualified property – including business aircraft – acquired and placed in service after January 19, 2025. IRS Notice 2026-11, published in January 2026, confirms this reinstatement and provides additional guidance on eligibility requirements, documentation standards and the treatment of property subject to binding contracts entered into before the effective date. Additionally, the definition of “eligible property” was clarified to include a broader range of aircraft modifications and upgrades, provided they meet the requirements for original use or substantial improvement. I.R.C. § 168(k)(2). There may also be

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

opportunities for new aircraft purchased under a binding contract on or before January 19, 2025, that are placed in service after that date, provided certain conditions and exceptions to the general rule are met, to qualify for 100 percent bonus depreciation. For aircraft and other long-lead-time assets, the binding written contract rule was retained, allowing taxpayers to lock in bonus depreciation rates based on the date of contract execution, not just the inservice date. I.R.C. § 168(k)(2). The applicability of these transition rules is highly fact-dependent and should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Practical Implications for Aircraft Owners and Operators Tax Planning Opportunities: Aircraft purchasers can fully expense the cost of eligible aircraft in the year placed in service, significantly reducing current-year taxable income. I.R.C. § 168(k). The continued inclusion of used aircraft expands planning flexibility for buyers in the secondary market. I.R.C. § 168(k)(2)(A). Qualifying improvements may also be eligible, allowing for strategic planning around major refurbishments. I.R.C. § 168(k)(2).

dates is critical to secure eligibility under the revised rules. I.R.C. § 168(k)(2). Custom or longlead-time aircraft must ensure that contracts are properly executed to lock in bonus depreciation rates. I.R.C. § 168(k)(2). Though federal bonus depreciation is generous, state conformity varies. Consult with advisors to assess the impact on state tax liabilities. Strategic Considerations: The revival of 100 percent bonus depreciation creates a window of opportunity for accelerated acquisitions and upgrades.

Conclusion Aircraft owners, operators and flight departments considering acquisitions or major upgrades should revisit capital expenditure plans in light of the permanent restoration of 100 percent bonus depreciation. With proper structuring and documentation, these changes may generate substantial federal tax savings while improving cash flow. For more information or questions about this topic, please contact one of the authors.

Compliance Considerations: Careful documentation of acquisition and in-service

Corporate Jet Practice

IRS Recordkeeping Essentials for Aircraft Owners: The Keys to a Turbulence-Free IRS Audit By Jessica L. Kirk, Kate Minnich, Emily Marie Earnshaw, Abbey Benjamin Garber and Lee S. Meyercord The IRS continues to scrutinize the use of privately owned aircraft with many active audits pending.1 In 2024, the IRS launched a campaign to audit high-networth taxpayers – including large corporations, large partnerships and high-income taxpayers – claiming business deductions for private jet use.2 Aircraft use by tax-exempt organizations is also under scrutiny and vulnerable to IRS audits.3

“

Expenses related to assets used for a business purpose, including aircraft owned by an entity or individual, are generally deductible. However, if the aircraft is also used for personal or other nonbusiness purposes by owners or employees, the business and nonbusiness use must be apportioned, and deductions are generally allowed only for business use.

Detailed and accurate recordkeeping is the key to prevailing in an IRS aircraft audit.”

Aircraft audits are factually intensive and require heightened recordkeeping and supporting evidence to establish a taxpayer’s entitlement to deductions. Detailed and accurate recordkeeping is the key to prevailing in an IRS aircraft audit. This article reviews general IRS recordkeeping requirements, outlines the heightened requirements for aircraft, explains how to prepare for an aircraft audit and provides helpful tips for when a taxpayer’s recordkeeping is less than perfect.

Holland & Knight

General Recordkeeping Requirements The Internal Revenue Code and U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations require that all taxpayers keep permanent accounting books or records and make them available to the IRS upon request.4 In general, such documentation must be sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits and other matters required to be shown on the taxpayer’s tax return.5 Although the Treasury Department regulations do not require any particular format for these records, a taxpayer’s records must be kept in a form or accounting system that allows the IRS to determine whether liability for tax is incurred and, if so, the amount.6 For business deductions, the taxpayer bears the burden of substantiating both the amount of the deduction and that the purpose underlying the deduction is ordinary and necessary to the operation of the taxpayer’s trade or business.7 Under what is known as the Cohan rule, if a taxpayer’s evidence indicates that they incurred a deductible expense but the exact amount of that expense could not be determined or proven, the IRS may accept a close approximation and not disallow the deduction entirely.8 Taxpayers should satisfy these general business expense recordkeeping requirements by maintaining a journal and general ledger containing receipts and disbursements, as well as organized expense records. Expense records can take the form of canceled checks, bills, invoices, receipts, credit card statements or other documents reflecting proof of payment and should include the name of the payee, amount paid, date paid and a description of the item or service received.9 However, for private aircraft owners, keeping these general or approximated business records alone is not enough.

Heightened Aircraft Recordkeeping Requirements The Internal Revenue Code subjects aircraft business expenses to additional and heightened recordkeeping and substantiation requirements.10 Under these more stringent rules, no deduction or credit is allowed with respect to aircraft unless the taxpayer proves 1) the amount of the expense, 2) time and place of travel, 3) business purpose of the expense and 4) business relationship of any benefit recipient.11

Each item relating to an aircraft expense must be proven by adequate records or sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement.15 The “adequate records” requirement is generally satisfied by maintaining an account book, a diary, flight log, statement of expense, trip sheets or similar records, as well as documentary evidence prepared or maintained at or near the time of the expenditure or use.16 Aircraft expenses and use may also be supported by the taxpayer’s statement, whether written or oral, containing specific and detailed information and other corroborative evidence.17 Direct corroborative evidence, such as a written statement or oral testimony from a flight passenger or pilot, can support any element of an aircraft expenditure, and circumstantial evidence may also be used to support business purposes and business relationships.18 Although the level of detail required to satisfy the aircraft recordkeeping requirements may vary depending on the facts and circumstances, because recall accuracy fades with time, the IRS views a record or statement made at or near the time of an expenditure as having a higher degree of credibility than a record or statement prepared later.19

Be Prepared for an IRS Aircraft Audit In addition to satisfying the general recordkeeping requirements discussed earlier, new and existing aircraft owners should review their aircraft recordkeeping and prepare now for a potential IRS audit. Memories fade, and IRS audits may look back over a number of years. Thus, it is important to document flight details contemporaneously or as close to the time of flight as possible. Proper and detailed documentation can speed up an audit and reduce unnecessary follow-up questions. In our experience, IRS auditors ask for a wide variety of documents to substantiate aircraft expenses and use, including, but not limited to:

A Detailed Flight Log. The flight log should list all flight data, including date, origin, destination, miles traveled and flight time. A Manifest of All Passengers on Each Flight. Owners should record who flew on the plane each trip, as well as each passenger’s individual itinerary and any personal or business relationship between the passenger and owner of the aircraft. Documentation of Business Purpose. Agents ask for robust descriptions of each passenger’s business purpose for each flight taken. Documents that substantiate business purpose may include email correspondence scheduling business meetings, calendar entries and meeting agendas that detail matters discussed and attendees. Agreements and Policies. Agents will ask for any agreements or policies in place regarding use of an aircraft by related businesses. Relationships and lease arrangements among related businesses for aircraft use should be formalized and documented with the help of an aviation attorney. Additionally, any dry-lease documents or service agreements with third-party companies should be kept.

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

To support a taxpayer’s aircraft business use, such records generally must contain sufficient information about each element for every business use.12 The Cohan rule, discussed previously, does not apply to aircraft.13 Thus, the IRS generally will not accept a taxpayer’s approximations or unsupported testimony for aircraft-related deductions and instead requires sufficient proof of each element.14

Depreciation Documentation. If claiming bonus or other depreciation on the aircraft, the owner should maintain detailed schedules of how depreciation is calculated and applied in each tax year. Responding to IRS requests for documentation can be overwhelming and challenging for owners and their accountants. Therefore, it is important to involve a tax professional with experience in aviation tax audits early in the audit to provide the IRS team what it needs and push back on requests that are overly burdensome or irrelevant to the scope of the audit.

What if My Aircraft Recordkeeping Is Not Perfect? If an aircraft owner is not currently in compliance with IRS guidance on recordkeeping or is unsure whether they are in compliance, they should consider the following steps to mitigate any negative effects of a future IRS audit: Review documentation and deductions from prior tax years to help ensure compliance with current tax law.

Corporate Jet Practice

IRS Recordkeeping Essentials for Aircraft Owners: The Keys to a Turbulence-Free IRS Audit | CO NT I NUED

Identify and gather documentation and records relevant to aircraft ownership and the calculation of past deductions. Partner with aviation law counsel or an aircraft management company to create a documentation system. Seek advice and guidance from professionals with experience in aviation tax audits. As noted previously in many circumstances, noncontemporaneous expense and use records may provide sufficient substantiation. Thus, even if you have already been contacted by the IRS for an audit, involving a tax professional with experience in aviation tax audits early in the process to help you respond to IRS requests and advocate on your behalf will put you in the best position to timely and favorably resolve the audit.

See Cohan v. Comm’r, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930).

See these IRS resources on general recordkeeping for additional guidance: www.irs.gov/businesses/ small-businesses-self-employed/recordkeeping; https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businessesself-employed/what-kind-of-records-should-i-keep; Rev. Proc. 98-25, 1998-1 CB 689 (prescribing specific rules on how to retain accounting and financial data used to support an amount of income, deduction, credit or other item on a return that is not available in hard copy but in a computerized format for later review or audit); Rev. Proc. 97-22, 1997-1 CB 652 (providing guidance on using electronic storage systems to satisfy recordkeeping requirements). 9

See I.R.C. § 274(d). Under section 274(d), all “listed property” is subject to these heightened requirements. “Listed property” is broadly defined and generally includes “passenger automobiles” and other property used for transportation, including airplanes or jets, helicopters, boats, motorcycles and other vehicles. I.R.C. § 280F(d)(4); Treas. Reg. § 1.280F-6(b). 10

Notes See www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/lbiactive-campaigns; see also Treas. Inspector Gen. FOR Tax Admin., Rep. No. 2025-1S0-012 www.tigta.gov/ sites/default/files/reports/2025-08/20251S0012fr. pdf, 2-3 (Feb. 26, 2025), (TIGTA Report) (discussing LB&I’s aircraft audit activities). Despite the change in administration, the IRS’ campaign is still active to date, with no clear signs of slowing. 1

See Abbey Garber, Lee Meyercord and Kate Minnich: www.hklaw.com/en/insights/ publications/2024/03/irs-announces-new-campaignto-audit-personal-use-of-business-jets, Holland & Knight alert (March 15, 2024). 2

See TIGTA Report, supra note 1 (the IRS began developing its Corporate Jet Personal Usage Compliance Strategy for tax-exempt organizations in April 2024); Rebecca Chen, IRS Oversight of Nonprofits’ Jet Use Deemed Weak by Watchdog, Bloomberg Law (March 3, 2025). 3

See I.R.C. § 6001; Treas. Reg. §§ 1.6001-1(a), 1.60011(e), 1.446-1(a)(4), 31.6001-1(a). 4

See I.R.C. § 162(a) (allowing a deduction for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business). 7

I.R.C. § 274(d); see also Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.2745T(b)(6) (stating the elements to be proved as 1) the amount (including each separate expense and the amount of use), 2) time (date of expense) and 3) business purpose for the expense. 11

Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.274-5T(c)(2)(ii)(c)(1).

Id. Section 1.274-5T(a) (“This limitation supersedes the doctrine founded in Cohan v. Commissioner”). 13

Id. But see id. Section 1.274-5T(c)(2)(v) (indicating that the IRS may accept substantial compliance with the “adequate records” requirement). 14

I.R.C. Section 274(d); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.274-5T(c) (1). 15

Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.274-5T(a), (c)(2).

Id. Section 1.274-5T(a), (c)(3).

See Treas. Reg. § 1.6001-1(a).

Id. Section 1.274-5T(c)(3)(i).

See Treas. Reg. § 31.6001-1(a).

See id. Section 1.274-5T(c)(1), (2).

Holland & Knight

By Jessica L. Kirk, Kate Minnich and Abbey Benjamin Garber The IRS continues to prioritize business aircraft audits.1 At the same time, the IRS has expanded its focus on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs designed to resolve disputes more efficiently. Aircraft audits are often fact-intensive, multiyear examinations that turn on business-use allocations and judgments about litigation hazards, making them well suited for ADR. Fast Track Settlement (FTS) is designed to resolve precisely these types of factual and legal disputes earlier in the administrative process, before a case heads to the Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals) or litigation. In the authors’ recent experience, IRS Examination (Exam) teams are offering FTS more frequently in aircraft audits, although the results have been mixed. This article provides background on the IRS’s renewed FTS focus and an overview of the FTS program and offers practical insights drawn from our experience navigating aircraft disputes through the process.

IRS ADR Framework In the IRS administrative context, ADR refers to the IRS’s suite of informal, confidential, and voluntary settlement and mediation programs.2 These processes allow taxpayers and the IRS to resolve disputes without litigation and promote open communication to reach early, fair resolutions while preserving taxpayers’ traditional appeal and litigation rights. FTS is one of the IRS’s principal ADR programs.3 FTS provides taxpayers an opportunity to resolve disputed issues during an ongoing examination. The process brings together the taxpayer, Exam and an Appeals mediator in an effort to reach a timely

resolution of factual and legal disagreements while the case remains in Exam’s jurisdiction and without proceeding through the traditional Appeals process.

Renewed FTS Focus After participation in IRS ADR programs declined substantially for a number of years,4 the IRS has revitalized and diligently encourages broader use of FTS.5 For example, IRS guidelines now require more internal review before denying a taxpayer’s request to pursue FTS and an explanation when that request is denied, providing some procedural safeguards against arbitrary denial.6 Likewise, IRS guidance clarified that statements made during FTS are generally legally protected from disclosure, assuring participants that candid settlement discussions will remain confidential and not resurface with Appeals or in litigation.7 These changes demonstrate an effort to make FTS more available and appealing to taxpayers who may otherwise head straight to Appeals.

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

From Runway to Resolution: Accelerating Aircraft Tax Disputes with Fast Track Settlement

How FTS Works To evaluate whether FTS is the right strategic option, taxpayers and their representatives should understand how the process works. Key FTS procedural steps, party roles and advantages are outlined below. When to Consider FTS: Generally, Exam may propose or a taxpayer may request FTS after the IRS has issued its written position on remaining unagreed audit issues and after the taxpayer has provided a written response setting out its position. FTS should be initiated only after an issue has been fully developed and generally before the 30-day letter is issued. The IRS retains full discretion to accept taxpayers into the FTS program. There is no formal appeal from a denial to participate in FTS, although the recently implemented internal approval and explanation requirements provide some protection and transparency. Getting into the Program: If the taxpayer and Exam agree to participate, the parties submit a one-page FTS application. No formal protest is required. The parties’ previously prepared written positions are submitted with the application package. In our experience, Exam may also request that the taxpayer provide a brief written

Corporate Jet Practice

From Runway to Resolution: Accelerating Aircraft Tax Disputes with Fast Track Settlement | CO NT I NUED

description of each remaining disputed issue to accompany the application. A list of the taxpayer’s anticipated FTS participants may also be requested. To ensure a successful FTS process, the taxpayer or a representative with settlement authority should attend the settlement conference. The Appeals Advantage: If Appeals accepts the case for FTS, an Appeals officer trained in mediation is assigned. In this role, Appeals acts as a neutral facilitator or mediator, not in its traditional settlement role.8 The Appeals mediator brings two key powers: settlement authority and the ability to consider litigation hazards. Traditionally, Exam agents are bound by strict enforcement rules and unable to consider litigation hazards or settle issues with taxpayers. By contrast, Appeals officers look at the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and weigh factual, legal and evidentiary litigation hazards to reach a reasonable settlement. During FTS, the Appeals mediator may help the parties weigh the hazards and propose settlement terms, but all three parties (taxpayer, Exam and Appeals) must agree to any resolution. A Faster Resolution: One of FTS primary advantages is speed. The FTS process is intended to conclude within 120 days for large businesses and within 60 days for small businesses and tax-exempt organizations, significantly faster than the average 365-day resolution time in traditional Appeals.9 Preserving Taxpayer Rights: Reaching a resolution through FTS is voluntary. The parties can withdraw from the process at any time, even after reaching a preliminary settlement. The mediator cannot force either party to accept a proposed agreement. If the parties do not reach a resolution, the taxpayer retains all traditional appeal and litigation rights and may still request a hearing before Appeals through the standard protest process.

10 Holland & Knight

Our FTS Experience The authors have increasingly seen the IRS offer and taxpayers accept FTS. Two recent engagements illustrate how dramatically outcomes can vary depending on whether the Exam team is prepared and committed to settlement. A Successful Mediation We achieved a successful outcome in a high-networth partnership aircraft audit. The mediation succeeded largely because both the Exam team and our team came prepared and willing to negotiate. All parties were focused on settlement and weighed the hazards of litigation in shaping the outcome. Both Exam and the Appeals mediator brought subject-matter experts who attended and were consulted throughout the mediation, which benefited the process. All parties attended in person, which enhanced the negotiation dynamic. We did not prepare a separate FTS summary, but Exam provided our prior written disputed issue responses with the application package, giving the mediator sufficient context. The mediator held a premediation conference, and the parties exchanged presentations several days before the mediation. The mediator was experienced, demonstrated a strong grasp of the issues and consulted a subject matter expert when needed. After a full day of negotiations, the parties reached a verbal agreement that the mediator memorialized in writing several days later. The IRS then prepared the initial settlement calculations, and the parties resolved several calculation issues before finalizing the settlement amount. Notably, the mediation allowed a time-value-of-money adjustment in lieu of straight depreciation recapture, a settlement approach unavailable in Exam. An Unsuccessful Mediation At the other end of the spectrum, we experienced an unsuccessful FTS mediation in the examination of a C corporation and one of its officers. This matter involved two disputed legal issues, one of which was an aircraft issue, and associated penalties. The Exam team seemed eager to offer FTS to the taxpayer.

A brief statement of the disputed issues was requested to accompany the FTS application. The mediator did not hold a pre-mediation conference. We also did not exchange presentations in advance of the mediation. The Exam team did not attend in person, while our taxpayer team traveled to the Appeals office. We felt that being physically present with the mediator was advantageous. Neither Exam nor the Appeals mediator brought subject-matter experts, limiting meaningful real-time discussions of the more technical issues. Exam presented its case first, followed by the taxpayer. After breaking into separate sessions, the mediator spoke with the taxpayer, where we presented what we believed were the strengths of our case and signaled one issue on which we might concede. The mediator relayed this to the Exam team, which flatly refused to move from its position. Exam remained unwilling to engage even after the mediator reminded the team that participation in FTS requires meaningful settlement discussions. The mediator suggested Exam consider settling one of the issues if we could provide supporting evidence, which our team proceeded to produce. Before discussions could turn to the second issue, however, the Exam team abruptly withdrew from the tentative agreement and ended the mediation. Exam’s explanation for the termination was that it did not believe further discussions would be productive. It seemed that the Exam team viewed FTS primarily as a procedural step rather than a genuine settlement opportunity. In retrospect, the mediator might have more effectively pressed Exam to continue the process, reconsider its position and articulate specific grounds for refusing to compromise.

Conclusion The IRS continued focus on business aircraft audits, coupled with its institutional efforts to revitalize ADR programs, presents both challenges and opportunities for taxpayers. While FTS offers a meaningful path to early resolution in fact-intensive disputes like aircraft audits, particularly when both sides approach the process with genuine intent to settle, there is no guarantee of a reasonable proceeding or favorable outcome.

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

“

The success of FTS depends heavily on the preparation and good faith of the participants.”

The recent IRS changes to the FTS program represent important structural improvements that should encourage greater use of FTS. Further, the authors’ experiences underscore that the success of FTS depends heavily on the preparation and good faith of the participants. When both parties arrive with deep subject-matter knowledge, a willingness to weigh litigation hazards and a commitment to the process, FTS can yield favorable and efficient outcomes. Conversely, when an Exam team treats FTS as merely procedural, the process can stall regardless of the merits. Taxpayers navigating aircraft audits should consider FTS early in the dispute life cycle and invest in thorough preparation to maximize the likelihood of successful mediation.

Notes In February 2024, the IRS announced a new campaign to audit high-net-worth taxpayers claiming business deductions for the use of private jets. True to its word, the IRS has initiated many aircraft audits to determine whether large corporations, large partnerships, and high-income taxpayers are properly allocating private aircraft flights between business and personal uses, 1

Corporate Jet Practice 11

From Runway to Resolution: Accelerating Aircraft Tax Disputes with Fast Track Settlement | CO NT I NUED

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/ publications/2024/03/irs-announces-new-campaignto-audit-personal-use-of-business-jets. In addition to FTS, the IRS offers several other ADR mechanisms, including Fast Track MediationCollection, the Rapid Appeals Process and PostAppeals Mediation, each with distinct procedural features and suited to different case postures. 2

FTS began as a pilot program in 2001 and was later adopted as a permanent program for the Large Business and International (LB&I) division in 2003, the Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) division in 2012, and the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/ SE) division in 2017. 3

Participation in IRS ADR programs fell 65 percent between 2013 and 2022. See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-23-105552, “Tax Enforcement: IRS Could Better Manage Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs to Maximize Benefits” (May 2023), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23105552. 4

The IRS has made a concerted effort to revitalize the FTS program and provide faster resolution services to taxpayers through 1) the formation of the ADR Program Management Office in April 2024 (IR-2024-119, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irsindependent-office-of-appeals-forms-alternativedispute-resolution-program-management-office), 2) the establishment of a two-year FTS pilot program (Announcement 2025-6 (2025-5 IRB 526)) testing 5

12 Holland & Knight

significant and positive procedural changes to FTS, and 3) the issuance of interim LB&I guidance for FTS, July 23, 2025 (LBI-04-0725-0008), https://www.irs.gov/ pub/foia/ig/spder/lbi-04-0725-0008%20public.pdf. I.R.S. LB&I Directive LBI-04-0725-0008, “Interim Guidance on Reinforcing the Customer Focused, High Efficiency LB&I Examination Process” (July 23, 2025), https://www.irs.gov/pub/foia/ig/spder/ lbi-04-0725-0008%20public.pdf. Mary A. McNulty et al., “IRS Releases Guidelines for Speeding Up Audits of Large Businesses,” Holland & Knight alert, (July 30, 2025), https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/ publications/2025/07/irs-releases-guidelines-forspeeding-up-audits-of-large-businesses. 6

IRS Chief Couns. Advice 202625021 (Jan. 6, 2026) (finding that statements made during FTS are generally not disclosable under 5 U.S.C. § 574 or Federal Rule of Evidence 408). 7

The prohibition against ex parte communications between Appeals and Exam does not apply to FTS because Appeals is facilitating an agreement between the taxpayer and Exam, not acting in its traditional Appeals role. 8

National Taxpayer Advocate Annual Report to Congress, Most Serious Problem No. 9, 142 (2022). Complex cases can take on average more than 600 days to be resolved in Appeals. Id. 9

By Logan Evan Gans and Andrew M. Piper The IRS has entered a new era of enforcement, leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced data analytics to enhance its audit capabilities. This shift is particularly relevant for high-net-worth individuals, large corporations and those involved in complex transactions such as business aviation, where the intersection of tax law and operational complexity creates unique audit risks. Evolution of IRS Audit Practices: Historically, IRS audits relied heavily on manual review, random selection and traditional red-flag indicators. In recent years, however, the IRS has invested significant resources in modernizing its enforcement infrastructure. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 allocated substantial funding to the IRS, much of which has been directed toward technology upgrades and the recruitment of data scientists and AI specialists. The agency now employs sophisticated algorithms to analyze vast quantities of tax data, cross-reference thirdparty information and identify patterns indicative of noncompliance. In February 2026, the IRS formalized this shift with the publication of Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 10.24.1, IRS Policy for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance, which establishes binding standards for the deployment and oversight of AI in tax enforcement – including bias testing protocols, governance structures and audit trail requirements. AI-Driven Audit Selection and Risk Assessment: AI tools are transforming the way the IRS selects audit targets and conducts investigations. Key features of this new approach include: 1. Pattern Recognition. AI systems can detect anomalies in tax filings, such as inconsistencies between reported income and lifestyle indicators or discrepancies between related entities’ filings. 2. Predictive Analytics. By analyzing historical audit outcomes and taxpayer profiles, AI models can flag returns with a higher probability of underreporting or aggressive tax positions.

3. Integration of External Data. The IRS now routinely incorporates data from financial institutions, public records and even social media to corroborate or challenge taxpayer disclosures. 4. Targeted Campaigns. Recent IRS initiatives have focused on areas with high audit potential, such as the personal use of business jets, international asset holdings and complex partnership structures. For example, the IRS may specifically target the allocation of business and personal use of private aircraft, with AI tools used to identify taxpayers whose deductions may not align with usage patterns. Implications for Aviation and Complex Transactions: The aviation sector is a prime example of an industry under heightened scrutiny. The IRS’s AI-driven audits may hone in on the following:

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

IRS Audits and the Emerging Role of AI in Enforcement

1. Dissecting Flight Logs and Expense Allocations. AI can match flight records, passenger manifests and expense reports to determine whether claimed business deductions are substantiated. 2. Cross-Border Transactions. For aircraft held through offshore entities or involved in international operations, AI tools can trace ownership structures and flag potential noncompliance with reporting requirements. 3. Personal vs. Business Use. The IRS is using AI to analyze patterns of aircraft use, identifying flights that may be improperly classified as business-related and disallowing associated deductions where warranted. Looking Ahead and Preparing for the Future. The IRS’s adoption of AI is not a temporary trend but a fundamental shift in enforcement strategy. As these tools become more sophisticated, taxpayers should expect increased audit rates, more targeted inquiries and a lower threshold for triggering investigations. To navigate this evolving environment, taxpayers may benefit from a well-informed and technology-aware approach to compliance – one that aligns with IRS methodologies and proactively addresses areas of potential scrutiny. For more information or questions about this topic, please contact one of the authors.

Corporate Jet Practice 13

The Family Office: Planning for Private Aircraft Assets By Jonathan M. Epstein The past decade has seen the growth of the family office as a separate legal entity to manage the assets of families, coordinate multigenerational planning and philanthropic activities and otherwise act as stewards for family assets. Hence, it is logical that when the family members use private aircraft for business and personal travel, the family office is often involved. Aircraft are expensive assets to acquire and operate, and careful planning on ownership and operation can result in significant tax savings or deferment and avoid regulatory and liability pitfalls.

What Is the “Optimal” Structure for Owning and Operating the Aircraft? The optimal structure will differ depending on a number of factors, including expected usage, mix of business versus personal or other uses, and the structure of the family assets and income stream. In addition, the “optimal” structure must balance objectives that may conflict with one another. Tax Planning: A large family office may have sufficient revenue and operations to support the use of a private aircraft in connection with the family office’s business. In many cases, the use of the private aircraft on family office business can be structured as a charter or lease to the family office. However, it is often difficult to justify having the family office own and operate the aircraft on all flights, including personal and other business flights. If the family office is not operated profitably, then it risks being classified as a “hobby,” resulting in adverse tax consequences. Regulatory Compliance: If the aircraft is going to be operated as a private aircraft (and not by an FAA-certificated air taxi-operator/charter manager), then there are strict limits for when a company can provide the aircraft with crew for use to another entity or person for compensation, even by the company’s owners. In practice, this means that the family office cannot typically act as a “flight department” company or set up a

14 Holland & Knight

separate company to own and operate an aircraft for family members. However, there are several mechanisms commonly used to allow cost sharing among family members and entities, including drylease arrangements and timesharing agreements. Limiting Liability: Since protecting family assets is a key charge of most family offices, structuring aircraft ownership and operation to mitigate liability is an important factor. This can be done through several means, including 1) ensuring adequate insurance coverage, 2) segregating ownership and operations of the aircraft from the main assets of the family and 3) ensuring that corporate formalities are honored to prevent potential plaintiffs from “piercing the corporate veil.” Functional and Sustainable Structure: Though complex reimbursement structures may make sense on “paper,” simpler structures tend to work better in the long term because 1) the administrative burden is lower and 2) they reduce the risk that over time, intracompany payments or other formalities are ignored (therefore busting the tax or regulatory object that was sought). Usage and Succession Planning: Similar to multiowner aircraft, given the high value and significant cost of private aircraft, careful thought should go into planning usage, as well as how and when the aircraft assets would be sold or otherwise allocated in the future.

What Role Should the Family Office Play with Regard to Private Aviation? The family office plays a key role in the initial planning and ongoing accounting for the aircraft. Planning: No one knows the family asset structures like the family office manager. A good aviation lawyer or tax advisor will want to fully understand not only the family asset structure, but which individuals and entities will use the aircraft, the percentage of personal to business use expected, how family members feel about using a charter manager and even the plan for disposition of the aircraft if a key individual dies or becomes incapacitated. Hence, the family office has a key role in the planning stage.

• Ownership structures are often complex, with intracompany leasing or other cost reimbursement structures that may require intercompany payments and, in some cases, the collection of state sales taxes (or, in the case of timesharing arrangements, federal excise taxes). • Setting up and monitoring the purpose of each flight and the type of traveler onboard are critical to being able to properly depreciate the aircraft and determine which costs are deductible. • Depending on how personal use is structured, there may be “imputed” income to certain individuals that would need to be reported, as well as ensuring that key contracts such as insurance are maintained and key vendors paid such that funds are not commingled. For example, where one entity is required to pay for services, such payments are made from that entity’s bank account.

Can the Family Office Own or Operate the Aircraft? There are scenarios where the family office may be able to own and operate the aircraft directly, such as when the family office entity actually owns significant assets and has significant income. Similarly, the structure may work where the aircraft is “operated” by a charter manager or in the case of fractional shares. However, in many cases, the family office may not be the “best” entity to own the aircraft for several reasons. There are strict FAA rules about cost reimbursement for aircraft that are privately operated. Further, from a tax perspective, the family may not have sufficient income or operations to justify the use of a private aircraft. Hence, from a tax planning perspective, it may not be in a position to benefit from depreciation of the aircraft.

hangar and insurance coverage. In addition, many managers are also FAA-certificated air-taxi operators. As such, they can fly the aircraft in charter for third parties, help generate revenue to defray some of the fixed costs of owning and operating the aircraft, and be beneficial for tax planning purposes. However, there are costs associated with using a manager, and some families may not want their aircraft used by third parties.

Do We Need to Develop Our Own Expertise? Though you can rely on advisors for planning, having someone within the family office who is familiar with the regulatory and tax issues particular to aviation – and who understands the rationale behind the structuring – is invaluable. For example, it is not uncommon that as time goes on, employees may seek shortcuts in what information is collected or cease making intracompany payments to simplify procedures. Having someone periodically attend business aviation conferences, as well as monitor news and client updates put out by law firms and advisors, can also be helpful.

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

Accounting: There is a plethora of tasks that the family office is well suited to oversee:

How Holland & Knight Can Help Holland & Knight has one of the largest aviation practices in the world, with aviation practitioners in London, New York, Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and attorneys with decades of experience in business aviation transactions. In addition, our aviation practitioners and Private Wealth Services Group work with a number of Forbes-ranked families, individuals and private companies, with a number of our aviation and private wealth partners named as leading advisors in the Chambers High Net Worth guide. We have a multidisciplinary team that can help you address tax, transactional, regulatory and cross-border issues. For more information about developing and implementing your private aviation objectives, contact a member of Holland & Knight’s Aviation Team.

Should We Use a Professional Management Company? For the family office, a good professional aircraft management company can be invaluable in hiring pilots, overseeing maintenance, and arranging

Corporate Jet Practice 15

Private Aircraft Commuting: Personal Flights in Business Clothing By Jessica L. Kirk, Kate Minnich and Abbey Benjamin Garber A flight to the office may seem like a textbook business trip: An executive travels to work for business purposes. Yet, under federal tax rules, transportation by private aircraft between an employee’s residence and principal place of business is generally treated as personal commuting, not business travel.1 The tax result is a surprising combination of imputed employee income and lost employer deductions, making these types of flights a frequent source of confusion for taxpayers and an area of scrutiny in IRS examinations.

“

This article explains the federal income tax rules applicable to commuting and commuting-like flights, highlights key exceptions and offers practical recordkeeping guidance for taxpayers seeking to withstand IRS scrutiny.

Work done on the aircraft while traveling does not convert a commuting flight to a business flight. What Is Commuting? Generally, under federal income tax law, commuting is travel between any residence of an individual and the individual’s regular or principal place of business.2 A regular place of business is the location where the individual regularly conducts business activities.3 If an individual has more than one regular place of business, the principal place of business is determined by comparing the relative importance of the activities performed and the amount of time spent at each location.4

16 Holland & Knight

Work done on the aircraft while traveling does not convert a commuting flight to a business flight.5 Thus, an executive who flies from a city apartment, country home or any other residence to headquarters is commuting even if the aircraft enables the executive to work en route. Thus, the commuting analysis generally turns on the departure and destination locations (residence to or from regular office) rather than the purpose, cost, convenience or even the fact that the executive performs business tasks before, during or immediately after the flight.

Taxation of Commuting Flights Commuting to and from work is a routine personal activity generally classified as personal nonentertainment under the federal income tax private aircraft rules.6 When an employer provides a private-aircraft flight for commuting, the employee generally receives a taxable fringe benefit.7 The taxable fringe benefit amount is treated as wages subject to the employee’s usual tax rate and the employment tax withholding and informationreporting rules. The federal tax law entertainment rules disallow deductions for the cost of commuting flights provided to an employee for commuting, unless those flights are necessary to ensure the employee’s safety.8 Therefore, unlike other types of personal nonentertainment flights, which are generally deductible by the employer if there is proper employee fringe benefit income inclusion, the default rule for commuting expenses is that they are not deductible.9 In a sole proprietorship structure, the aircraft is operated directly by the individual or through a disregarded entity wholly owned by the individual for a business operated by the individual. The employee aircraft commuting rules generally do not apply to sole proprietors because a sole proprietor is not an employee of his or her own business and there is no employee income inclusion. Instead, with sole proprietors, the issue is whether the flight constitutes deductible business travel or nondeductible personal commuting under general business expense deductibility rules.10 The general rule is unfavorable: Flights between a residence and principal place of business are treated as nondeductible commuting.

Not all flights that begin or end at an individual’s residence are commuting. A flight may look like commuting but is instead treated as deductible business travel because it involves travel away from home, a temporary work location or travel between business locations, or because it falls within another tax law exception. Business Travel Away from Home: Travel expenses are deductible anytime a taxpayer is away from home on a business or profit-oriented trip.11 Likewise, the costs of going between one business location and another are deductible business flights.12 Thus, a flight from a passenger’s home and regular office in Dallas to Miami to visit another office location or for an established business purpose – such as a client meeting, site visit or negotiation in Miami – is not commuting merely because the passenger departs from or ultimately returns to their home city.13 Temporary Worksites: Travel from an individual’s home to a temporary or occasional work location is also not commuting.14 For example, a flight from a passenger’s home or regular office in Dallas to a construction site in Miami for a three-week project is a deductible business flight. The temporary assignment’s duration, the passenger’s regular work location and why the worksite is considered temporary should be documented. Home Office: Travel to and from a qualifying home office that is the passenger’s principal place of business is not commuting.15 Thus, a flight from a passenger’s qualifying home office in Dallas to another office location, client, plant or project site in Miami would be considered travel between business locations, rather than commuting. To qualify, a home office must be used regularly and extensively, and it must be the primary location used for the business’s administrative or management activities.16 Merely checking email from home or using a home as a matter of convenience is not enough. Employee Safety: In the employer-provided flight context, commuting expenses to ensure the safety of the employee are generally not subject to the commuting deduction disallowance.17 The safety exception is commonly documented with an independent security study, recorded threat assessments, a written security program and

other evidence that the aircraft arrangement responds to a genuine security concern. Convenience, status or time savings alone ordinarily will not satisfy the exception. Nonemployees: The employer provided commuting flight expense disallowance rules do not apply to nonemployees.18 If a flight includes both employees and nonemployees, the taxpayer should maintain a reasonable allocation of the relevant costs and benefits among the various types of passengers.

Be Prepared for an IRS Aircraft Audit An IRS examination often turns on the taxpayer’s recordkeeping and ability to reconstruct each flight.19 In the authors’ experience, IRS auditors ask for a wide variety of documents to substantiate aircraft commuting or non-commuting use, including but not limited to:

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

What Is Not Commuting?

A Detailed Flight Log. List all flight data, including date, origin, destination, miles traveled and flight time. For travel to and from a passenger’s residence, clearly identify why such travel is or is not commuting and whether a commuting exception applies. A Manifest of All Passengers on Each Flight. Record every passenger, the passenger’s relationship to the employer or aircraft owner, and whether the passenger is an employee, partner, shareholder, client, family member or other nonemployee. Documentation of Purpose. Document the purpose of each flight with itineraries, calendar entries, emails, meeting agendas, client or site records, and any temporary-worksite or security documentation. Records should explain mixedpurpose flights and support a reasonable allocation among commuting, business, personal and safety-related travel. A Security Study. If commuting flights are necessary to ensure an employee’s safety, consider obtaining an independent security study. The study should include details of any actual or potential threats to the employee’s safety, the risk profiles of common destinations and an analysis of how using private aircraft particularly minimizes those concerns.

Corporate Jet Practice 17

Private Aircraft Commuting: Personal Flights in Business Clothing | CO NT I NUED

IRS aircraft audits are demanding for owners, executives and their accountants, particularly where the aircraft serves multiple passengers and purposes. Involving tax counsel with experience in aviation audits early in the process will help organize the records, effectively evaluate flight classifications, respond to IRS requests, and position the taxpayer for a timely and favorable resolution.

Notes See I.R.C. § 274(l); Treas. Reg. §§ 1.162-2(e), 1.2621(b)(5); see also id. § 1.212-1(f). 1

I.R.C. § 274(l); Treas. Reg. §§ 1.262-1(b)(5), 1.27414(a), (c)(2), (c)(3). 2

See, generally, Comm’r v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946); Comm’r. v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168 (1993); see also I.R.C. § 280A(c)(1)(A) (rule applicable to home offices).

Rev. Rul. 99-7, 1999-1 C.B. 361 (citing Rev. Rul. 55-109, 1955-1 C.B. 261); see also Treas. Reg. § 1.274-14(a). 12

See Treas. Reg. § 1.274-14(a) (“The rules in section 274(l) and this section do not apply to business expenses under section 162(a)(2) paid or incurred while traveling away from home.”); see also Rev. Rul. 99-7 (“[T]he costs of going between one business location and another business location generally are deductible under section 162(a).”). 13

Treas. Reg. § 1.274-14(c)(3) (limiting “place of employment” to the employee’s regular or principal place of business and excluding temporary or occasional places of employment); Rev. Rul. 99-7. 14

See Soliman, 506 U.S. at 177.

See Staff of Joint Comm. on Tax’n, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. General Explanation of The Revenue Provisions of The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, at 566 (Comm. Print 1984) (JCS-41-84); I.R.S. Publ’n 463, at 19 (2025). 5

See Treas. Reg. § 1.274-2(b)(1)(i).

See, generally, I.R.C. § 61(a)(1); Treas. Reg. § 1.61-21. For qualifying commuting flights, the taxable fringe may be determined under the favorable Standard Industry Fare Level (SIFL) formula. Id. § 1.61-21(g). If the SIFL rules do not apply, a fair-market or arm’slength charter or lease value is applied. Id. § 1.6121(b)(6), (b)(7). 7

I.R.C. § 274(l).

This nondeducibility rule applies even when the employee includes the SIFL or charter value amounts as wage income. The wage inclusion itself also does not create a corresponding deduction for the employer. See Treas. Reg. § 1.274-14(a); I.R.C. § 274(e); see also Staff of Joint Comm. on Tax’n, 115th Cong., 2d Sess., General Explanation of Public Law 115-97, at 190 (Comm. Print 2018) (JCS-1-18). 9

I.R.C. §§ 162, 262; see also Treas. Reg. §§ 1.162-2(e), 1.262-1(b)(5). 10

I.R.C. § 162(a)(2); Treas. Reg. § 1.162-2(a).

18 Holland & Knight

Rev. Rul. 99-7.

A home office is a “principal place of business” if it is used for the administrative or management activities of any trade or business of the taxpayer so long as there is no other fixed location of such trade or business where the taxpayer conducts substantial administrative or management activities of such trade or business. I.R.C. § 280A(c)(1)(A); see also Comm’r. v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168 (1993) (comparing the relative importance of activities performed and time spent at each location to determine principal place of business). 16

I.R.C. § 274(l); Treas. Reg. § 1.274-14(b); see also id. §§ 1.61-21(k)(5), 1.132-5(m). 17

I.R.C. § 274(l). Partners in partnerships and 2 percent shareholders in Subchapter S corporations are not “employees.” Therefore, although the section 274(l) deduction disallowance may apply to employees of Subchapter C corporations, it should not apply to flights provided by partnerships to partners or to flights provided by Subchapter S corporations to 2-percent shareholders. Cf. I.R.S. Chief Counsel Advice 200344008 (concluding that 2-percent shareholders of an S corporation could not be treated as employees for purposes of I.R.C. section 274(e)(2) and (9)). 18

Jessica L. Kirk et al., “IRS Recordkeeping Essentials for Aircraft Owners: The Keys to a Turbulence-Free IRS Audit,” Holland & Knight’s Aviation Law Blog (Sept. 11, 2025), https://‌www.hklaw.com/‌en/insights/ publications/2025/09/irs-re cordkeeping-essentialsfor-aircraft-owners. 19

By Juan Carlos Ferrer Though there are some similarities between financing an aircraft registered in the U.S. versus financing an aircraft registered abroad, in truth those similarities are vastly outweighed by the differences and complexities associated with a cross-border aircraft financing. The following is an overview of some important differences between domestic and crossborder aircraft finance transactions, as well as some practice pointers to assist in navigating the potential pitfalls of financing a non-U.S.-registered aircraft.

Cape Town Convention Financing an aircraft registered in a country that has ratified the Cape Town Convention (CTC) can provide comfort to aircraft financiers that they will ultimately be able to timely foreclose on the aircraft should a default occur. Many countries have ratified the CTC, but a surprising number of countries have not. And even among those countries that have ratified the CTC, it is important to fully understand what elections the ratifying country has made to govern creditors’ rights in relation to aircraft. Countries that have opted for Alternative A of the CTC afford far greater protections to creditors than those that opt for Alternative B or for reliance on that country’s existing insolvency laws.

Owner Registry vs. Operator Registry The FAA registry is an “owner-based” registry where the eligibility requirements for obtaining U.S. registration for an aircraft are determined based on the citizenship of the owner of the aircraft. The citizenship of the operator is irrelevant for purposes of registering an aircraft in the U.S. However, most foreign aircraft registries are “operator-based” registries that look to the citizenship of the operator – and not the owner – of an aircraft in order to determine eligibility to register an aircraft in that jurisdiction.

Understanding these types of nuances and how to deal with the challenges, as well as the opportunities that they present, is key to properly structuring crossborder aircraft finance transactions.

Court Systems and Rule of Law The well-established case law and consistency of the U.S. court system provide comfort to financiers of U.S.-registered aircraft. However, creditors’ rights laws vary from country to country, as does the sophistication of a country’s court system. Having a good grasp of a country’s track record for how quickly and fairly a financier’s rights and remedies are adjudicated, regardless of whether that country has ratified the CTC, is a very important aspect of financing a non-U.S.-registered aircraft.

Sophistication of Aircraft Registry

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

Comparing and Contrasting Domestic vs. Cross-Border Aviation Finance Transactions

Likewise, the sophistication and efficiency of aircraft registries vary widely from country to country. Though some aircraft registries record title transfers and security interests and process deregistration requests within one to three days, other aircraft registries can take upward of 30 days to do so. Understanding and properly planning for these potential delays is another important aspect of financing aircraft abroad.

Importance of Local Counsel Employing knowledgeable U.S. aviation counsel to “quarterback” the cross-border aircraft financing transaction, especially one with a network of highly skilled aviation counsel in various jurisdictions, is key to any successful transaction. Identifying and engaging the “go-to” aviation counsel in a particular country will greatly facilitate a smooth closing, both in terms of ensuring that the financing documents comport with local law requirements and facilitating the closing process with local authorities. Given these and other issues, financing an aircraft abroad can seem like a daunting task. But with proper guidance and planning, aircraft financiers can be confident that their interests will be protected notwithstanding that the aircraft is registered outside of the U.S. For more information or questions, please contact the author.

Corporate Jet Practice 19

Closing the Deal: Getting Cross-Border Business Aviation Transactions Done Right By Jonathan M. Epstein and Libby Bloxom

Highlights: With a limited inventory of quality used business aircraft available in the United States, buyers are looking to acquire business aircraft from non-U.S.sellers. International aircraft transactions create real opportunities but can be more challenging to get across the finish line for a number of reasons, including the continued uncertainty regarding tariffs, even though currently there are no U.S. tariffs on the import of civil aircraft into the U.S. In addition, in international transactions it is important to conduct adequate diligence of the counterparty to ensure compliance with U.S. sanctions and export controls. Differences in law as well as cultural differences can prolong international aircraft transactions. Assembling a good team of legal and technical professionals, as well as an aircraft broker familiar with international transactions, is essential for a successful transaction. Such a team can help potential buyers navigate the following key issues.

Technical Issues Can Create Major Costs, Headaches It is critical to have knowledgeable technical advisors experienced in international transactions to advise on a range of technical issues, such as: The aircraft may need an Export Certificate of Airworthiness and will need to be inspected by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR). DARs can differ in expertise and opinion, so it is important that the same DAR who does the inspection also is available to issue the Certificate of Airworthiness upon registration of the aircraft with the FAA.

20 Holland & Knight

There may be differences in equipment required between the FAA and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)-certificated aircraft. Changes to aircraft configuration approved by one authority may or may not need revalidation.

Be Aware of Legal Differences Understanding and being flexible, where possible, on key legal issues can often resolve legal impasses. For example: While used aircraft transactions in the U.S. are typically “as-is, where-is” with broad disclaimers regarding the condition of the aircraft, that is not the norm in some jurisdictions, where there is an expectation that the seller will warranty the condition of the aircraft. In Europe and the United Kingdom, it is common for sellers to ask for “tail coverage” insurance covering the seller for some period following the sale. Although rare in U.S. transactions, this coverage is available in the U.S. Some jurisdictions require original signature pages, notarized or apostilled documentation. This can delay a closing if such requirements are not identified early in the transaction.

Timing and Location of Closing and Deregistration/Registration One common area of dispute is when and where title will pass. This is complicated for a number of reasons: Non-U.S. sellers may be uncomfortable closing in the U.S. because of a lack of familiarity with U.S. tax laws. Similarly, U.S. sellers will have concerns about value-added tax (VAT) and other potential taxes when closing abroad. When closing in foreign jurisdictions, we often recommend engaging local aviation counsel/tax experts to advise our U.S. clients. A seller typically wants payment when it files to deregister the aircraft from its jurisdiction, whereas the buyer will not want to release funds until the aircraft is registered in its country. Given that the deregistration of title process can take several days in some cases, this can create an impasse. Careful drafting of the “closing room” clause can often satisfy both parties’ concerns.

Hammer Out Commercial Terms in the Offer/Letter of Intent (LOI) While the LOI in a domestic transaction is often very short, the number and types of issues that may be potentially contentious in a cross-border deal are significant and should ideally be ironed out at the LOI stage. Such issues include the closing location, choice of law, which party pays for ferry flights and export certificates of airworthiness, and the scope of the prepurchase inspection.

Be Cognizant of Cultural Differences Cultural differences also can delay a closing. Such differences can impact negotiations of the purchase agreement. For instance, although U.S. practice is to follow the terms of a nonbinding LOI, in some cultures, aggressive bargaining may continue on material terms – even during the delivery phase. Being flexible and compromising on certain terms, without losing the overall value of the transaction, is important in order to not delay closing. In addition, prior to engaging in negotiations, it may be prudent to inform the U.S. party that such aggressive negotiations may occur.

Tariffs and Import/Export Requirements Separate from the aviation regulatory requirements associated with international transactions (e.g., registration, deregistration, export certificates of airworthiness, etc.), aircraft being sold cross-border are treated as “merchandise” and subject to different export, import and tax considerations than when carrying passengers in the normal course of business. Aircraft entering the U.S. for the purpose of sale must generally be “permanently imported” for

customs purposes at the time of entry, even if they are coming into the U.S. for a prepurchase inspection where the purchaser can and may reject the aircraft. While historically, civil aircraft, engines and parts could be imported into the U.S. duty-free, during 2025 and into early 2026, civil aviation was caught up in the tariffs imposed on various countries and products. In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Since then, the U.S. has imposed tariffs under other authorities but largely exempted civil aircraft, engines and parts from these additional tariffs. However, threats to impose a restriction on imports of certain Canadian manufactured aircraft, and continued uncertainty mean that contracts need to be carefully drafted to address tariff risk. Further with heightened customs enforcement, parties need to be careful to properly import aircraft into the U.S.

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

“

Being flexible and compromising on certain terms, without losing the overall value of the transaction, is important in order to not delay closing.”

When exporting from the U.S., all parties need to ensure that the export is in compliance with U.S. export control and export clearance laws, including making an Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing when required in connection with the export of aircraft. (See Holland & Knight’s previous client alert, “Avoiding Pitfalls When Exporting Aircraft from the United States,” for helpful tips and guidance; www.hklaw.com/en/insights/ publications/2021/02/avoiding-pitfalls-whenexporting-aircraft-from-the-united-states). When purchasing an aircraft from a foreign seller and the aircraft was originally exported from the U.S., it is important to make sure that the aircraft was exported properly. In some circumstances, when the aircraft was not properly exported, a corrective EEI filing may have to be made prior to importing the aircraft.

Corporate Jet Practice 21

Closing the Deal: Getting Cross-Border Business Aviation Transactions Done Right | CO NT I NUED

Conduct Know Your Customer (KYC) Due Diligence With international aircraft transactions, increased compliance risks warrant substantial due diligence: While it is important to have representations and warranties regarding sanctions and export control compliance, those are not a replacement for adequate diligence of counterparties. As buyer it is critical to know who you are buying from, and the ownership history of aircraft bought abroad. For example, aircraft currently or formerly owned by Russian nationals include some sanctioned oligarchs that periodically appear on the market. These deals are complex and require substantial diligence, and in some cases authorization from the U.S. government may be required. (See Holland & Knight’s previous alert, “Navigating Russian Sanctions in Corporate Jet Transactions”; www.hklaw.com/en/insights/ publications/2022/05/navigating-russiansanctions-in-corporate-jet-transactions.) As a seller it is important to know not only who the buyer, is, but who the end-user is and where the funds come from. For example, the U.S. government believes that drug cartels are routinely buying older business aircraft to use for drug smuggling or other criminal activity. Similarly, some corporate jets are ending up being resold into Russia through intermediaries.

22 Holland & Knight

The Holland & Knight Difference Holland & Knight has the depth and experience to handle cross-border transactions in many jurisdictions, with aviation attorneys in the U.S., U.K. and Mexico who are supported by experienced aviation finance and international tax practitioners. Our attorneys have successfully navigated complex commercial and business aircraft cross-border deals around the world. For more information or questions about a specific situation involving your organization, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight’s Business Aviation Team.

By Jonathan M. Epstein The management, operation and maintenance of a business aircraft is a complex and expensive undertaking. Although some aircraft owners may be able to hire experienced pilots and mechanics, a good charter-manager brings additional resources in connection with maintenance oversight, logistics and flight planning. As a charter-manager customer, an owner often may take advantage of the chartermanager’s buying power associated with costs for overhead such as fuel and insurance. FAA-certified charter-managers may generate additional income for the owner by chartering the aircraft to third parties and often will allow an owner to charter other fleet aircraft at a discount.

The Charter-Management Arrangement Charter-management agreements range from turnkey management of an owner’s entire aircraft operation, including providing pilots, hangarage and insurance, to more limited arrangements. In a typical arrangement, the owner pays all the costs

of owning and operating the aircraft, including the pilots’ salaries and benefits (even if employed by the manager). If the manager is certificated as an air-taxi operator under Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) Part 135, then in addition to managing the aircraft, the manager may lease the aircraft and use it to generate revenue from third parties. A common arrangement is for the charter-manager to pay/credit 85 percent of the revenue generated from third-party charters to the owner as lease payments.

Choosing A CharterManagement Company Charter-managers range from single-aircraft operations to large international companies operating hundreds of aircraft. It is advisable to meet with and obtain quotes from more than one chartermanager before making any commitments. Among the recommended issues of inquiry are the following:

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

Placing Your Aircraft with a CharterManagement Company

Is the charter-manager certified under FAR 135? Is the charter-manager rated by any third-party services, such as WYVERN or ARGUS? Has the charter-manager gone through the voluntary process to obtain International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO) certification?

Corporate Jet Practice 23

Placing Your Aircraft with a Charter-Management Company | CO NT I NUED

“

A good professional aircraft management company can be invaluable in hiringpilots, overseeing maintenance, and arranging hangar and insurance coverage.”

Does the charter-manager have experience in the relevant category of aircraft? Does the charter-manager have facilities near where the aircraft is based? What is the charter-manager’s safety record?

Specific FAA Regulatory Issues Play a Role in Structuring the CharterManagement Arrangement Regulatory concepts are important when structuring aircraft ownership, including who will be in “operational control” of the aircraft for particular flights. In a pure management arrangement, the owner may hire the manager to provide pilots but the owner remains in operational control of the aircraft for the private flights of the owner (to be operated under FAR 91). In a pure charter-management arrangement, the charter-manager (which must be a certificated airtaxi operator) will lease or otherwise have contractual possession and operational control of the aircraft for all flights (operated as commercial flights under FAR 135). Most common is a combined arrangement where flights for the owner are conducted under the “operational control” of the owner under FAR Part 91, and flights for third parties are conducted by the charter-manager as commercial flights under FAR Part 135. There are tax, operational restrictions and other factors that go into determining the best structure, which include the following: The “Flight Department Company Trap.” An owner may operate an aircraft under FAR Part 91 for its own business purposes (e.g., incidental to the main business of the company). However, if the company’s primary purpose is to provide air transportation for compensation (even if the compensation comes from a member or parent company), then that entity is required to obtain an air-taxi certificate. Hence, though a special purpose

24 Holland & Knight

entity may own the aircraft, that entity will generally have to lease the aircraft to the parent or true operating subsidiary if it wants to fly the aircraft under FAR Part 91. The “134½ Operator”: If the manager does not hold a FAR Part 135 certificate, be wary of scenarios that involve 1) the owner leasing the aircraft to a number of entities with the manager providing pilots, 2) the manager making use of another operator’s FAR Part 135 certificate or 3) “franchising” type arrangements where the owner is independently marketing the aircraft for charter. Though there are scenarios for joint ownership and leasing that are legitimate, the FAA has punished operators that are viewed as trying to skirt the airtaxi certification process.

State and Federal Tax Considerations Depending on the specifics of the arrangement, a charter-management arrangement may have tax implications and your accountant or tax advisor needs to be part of the planning. For example, in some states predominant use in charter may qualify the aircraft for an exemption from state sales and use tax. However, the federal income tax issues associated with charter-management arrangements are complex and uncertain. For example, in the case of a charter flight provided to anyone other than the owner or a lessee, the IRS may take the position that a chartermanagement arrangement should be characterized as a rental of the aircraft to the manager, rather than services provided by the manager to the owner. Therefore, if employees of the owner or its related entities charter the aircraft, this may trigger a 7.5 percent federal excise tax (FET) on air transportation on the charter payments that is not generally applicable to most FAR Part 91 flights. Charter use may also affect the applicable depreciation method

Understanding the Cost Structure of the Agreement and Avoiding Conflicts of Interest Many disputes between owners and chartermanagers arise from misunderstandings about costs/markups that were either not disclosed or not understood by the owners, particularly where they create a potential conflict of interest. For example, charter-managers typically charge a handling fee/ surcharge on parts and material that is often a percentage of the cost of the parts/material. This surcharge creates a disincentive to find the lowest price solution for repairs/repair parts. Chartermanagers may charge labor rates for maintenance oversight in addition to actual time spent conducting maintenance and repair. In addition, chartermanagers often keep their management fees low but make a profit on fuel, hangar rental and other ancillary services. None of these fees are necessarily “red flags,” but they should be discussed up-front and addressed in the management agreement so there is no misunderstanding.

Liability and the Charter-Manager’s Insurance Policy An owner often benefits from placing its aircraft on a charter-manager’s fleet insurance policy. The manager may have higher liability limits and lower premiums than the owner could obtain on its own. However, it is critical that the management agreement and actual

insurance endorsements adding the owner to the policy fully cover the owner and any affiliates that will operate the aircraft and meet the requirements of any financer holding a security interest in the aircraft. As discussed above, often the owner or an affiliated company under a lease will be in “operational control” of private flights for the company operated under FAR Part 91. However, it is not uncommon to see the owner and/or affiliated company listed as an “additional insured,” and covered for liability solely for the operation of the aircraft by the “named insured” (i.e., the charter-manager). Hence, the owner may not be covered for its own operation of the aircraft. There are other protections that an insurance broker may add – at no cost – to the policy endorsement and certificate to ensure that the company is fully covered by this policy.

Conduct a Thorough Analysis Prior to Any Charter-Management Arrangement

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

or passive activity treatment of the aircraft, but thirdparty charter may be useful if there is considerable personal use of aircraft.

When considering a charter-management arrangement, aircraft owners must carefully analyze both the nature of the charter-management arrangement and specific charter-manager who will operate the aircraft. FAA regulatory compliance, income generation, tax implications and insurance coverage are some of the very important components of the analysis. Particularly important is identifying surcharges or markups to be imposed by the chartermanager that may not be readily apparent. The aircraft owner should educate itself as to these issues with appropriate legal and accounting advice in order to have productive discussions and negotiations with charter-manager candidates.

Corporate Jet Practice 25

Private and Business Aircraft Holland & Knight has an established group of attorneys with extensive experience handling private aircraft transactions for high-net-worth individuals, financiers, and private and public companies. Our team is well versed in the full range of legal and commercial aspects of aviation law, from purchases and sales to regulatory matters and more.

Handling All Types of Private Aircraft Transactions

Leading Lawyers with a Track Record You Can Depend On

Purchase, sale, finance and lease finance of private aircraft, including the structuring of the acquisition and ownership structure

Rely on Holland & Knight’s experienced attorneys to guide you through the myriad legal challenges that arise in the private aircraft industry.

Corporate and financing transactions

Highly qualified and extremely responsive to change, our team and its members have a long history of being recognized as leaders in aviation law.

Disposition of special assets, including numerous types of aircraft Aircraft operations, including the optimization of liability protection

Aviation insurance coverage matters Regulatory issues affecting private aircraft, including regulatory requirements regarding cost sharing Fractional share transactions

Negotiation of management, charter and maintenance agreements Tax controversies involving national and local offices of the IRS, as well as state and local tax agencies

26 Holland & Knight

In the 2026 Chambers High Net Worth guide, Holland & Knight was recognized in Band 1 of the Global-wide Private Aircraft category.

“

Clients commend the Firm for having a “high degree of integrity” and for being “technically knowledgeable” in handling high-value transactional matters and financings for jet owners. - 2026 Chambers High Net Worth

Jonathan M. Epstein Partner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870 jonathan.epstein@hklaw.com

Juan Carlos Ferrer Partner | Miami +1.305.789.7748 jc.ferrer@hklaw.com

Logan Evan Gans Partner | Miami +1.305.789.7491 logan.gans@hklaw.com

Abbey Benjamin Garber Partner | Dallas +1.214.969.1640 abbey.garber@hklaw.com

Jonathan Epstein has more than 20 years of experience assisting high-net-worth individuals and companies in private aircraft transactions. He helps clients in the acquisition of aircraft and in structuring aircraft operations. He has particular experience in international transactions, and he regularly advises charter operators, airlines and aircraft leasing companies on export-import and other compliance matters. He is active in the private aviation industry and is the immediate past chair of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), Regulatory Issues Advisory Group.

J.C. Ferrer focuses his practice on commercial and private aviation matters, banking and finance, secured transactions, cross-border leasing and financing, general corporate matters, and sales and acquisitions of capital equipment. He actively represents financial institutions, funds and high-net-worth individuals in connection with the purchase, sale and finance (including lease finance) of private and commercial aircraft, as well as in corporate and financing transactions. Such clients often rely on Mr. Ferrer to help acquire, finance and dispose of special assets.

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

Primary Contacts

Logan E. Gans is a private wealth services and tax attorney in Holland & Knight’s Miami office and co-chair of the State and Local Tax Team. Mr. Gans advises high-net-worth individuals, family offices, closely held businesses and institutional clients on complex federal, state and international tax matters, with a particular focus on Florida state and local tax, business aviation tax, real estate tax, cross-border/private wealth planning and tax controversy.

Abbey Garber has experience in all aspects of IRS practice, including audit, appeals, collection and litigation. He is representing several owners of private aircraft in IRS audits and appeals and has negotiated with the IRS on behalf of foreign air carriers as well. Prior to joining Holland & Knight, Mr. Garber served as an attorney, manager and executive for more than 30 years in the Office of Chief Counsel at the IRS. Mr. Garber has been recognized for his work by many top legal publications and organizations. He was named the 2024 Outstanding Texas Tax Lawyer by the State Bar of Texas.

Corporate Jet Practice 27

Private and Business Aircraft Practive Primary Contacts | CO NT I NUED

Lee S. Meyercord Partner | Dallas +1.214.969.1315 lee.myercord@hklaw.com

Barton W. Morrison Partner | Orlando +1.407.244.1131 barton.morrison@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard Of Counsel | New York +1.212.513.3233 john.pritchard@hklaw.com

Jessica L. Kirk Senior Counsel | Dallas +1.214.969.2188 jessica.kirk@hklaw.com

28 Holland & Knight

Lee Meyercord is a tax partner with Holland & Knight who represents taxpayers in all stages of a federal tax dispute, including audits, administrative appeals and federal income tax litigation. She has represented a broad range of clients, including Fortune 100 companies, large partnerships, closely held businesses, exempt organizations and high-net-worth individuals. She has experience representing airlines and owners of private aircraft in tax disputes and is well-versed in the complex centralized partnership audit rules. Ms. Meyercord is Board Certified in Tax Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Barton Morrison’s aviation practice focuses on the purchasing, selling and financing of private, business and training aircraft. Further, he advises on the documenting, closing and financing of aircraft, including the coordination of aircraft deliveries with the FAA, foreign civil aviation authorities and the International Registry. Mr. Morrison also represents some of the world’s largest aircraft leasing companies, national and international banks, airlines and aircraft owners and lessees in the purchase, sale, lease, financing and securitization of commercial aircraft.

John Pritchard has more than 25 years of experience in aircraft, equipment and facility finance. He is knowledgeable in all areas of asset-based financing and concentrates on the representation of lessees, lessors, lenders, borrowers and government guarantors in domestic and cross-border financings, securitizations, workouts and foreclosures. Mr. Pritchard has given many speeches on aircraft and equipment financing at various conferences.

Jessica Kirk is a tax attorney with Holland & Knight who represents taxpayers in all stages of a federal tax dispute, including audits, administrative appeals and federal income tax litigation. She has represented a broad range of clients, including owners of private aircraft in their IRS audits and appeals. Ms. Kirk has previous experience as a tax insurance broker where she secured coverage for her clients’ complex U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax issues.

Senior Counsel | Dallas +1.214.969.1311 cynthia.liu@hklaw.com

Giles Cornwall Consultant | London +44.20.7071.9917 giles.cornwall@hklaw.com

Eric J. Adler Associate | New York +1.212.513.3444 eric.adler@hklaw.com

Libby Bloxom Associate | Dallas +1.214.964.9455 libby.bloxom@hklaw.com

Cynthia Liu is an asset finance attorney in Holland & Knight’s Dallas office where she focuses on commercial aircraft finance. Ms. Liu represents commercial banks, leasing companies, borrowers, lenders and airlines in connection with secured and unsecured lending, simple and complex bank loans, sale/ lease transactions and other financing transactions in the U.S. and abroad. Additionally, Ms. Liu has extensive experience in international trade, including U.S. export controls and sanctions, as well as trade policy, World Trade Organization (WTO) litigation and trade remedies.

Giles Cornwall is an English aircraft finance consultant to Holland & Knight’s London office. His practice is focused on the sale and purchase, financing and leasing of aircraft and includes the negotiation of sale and purchase agreements, financing, security and lease documentation on behalf of lenders, aircraft owners, operators and high-net-worth individuals, as well as on issues relating to the sale, purchase, leasing, financing, maintenance, registration and operation of corporate fixed-wing and rotary aircraft.

Select Articles on Planning and Transactions | October 2026

Cynthia Liu

Eric Adler advises clients on corporate jet transactions and aviation asset-based financing. As a former airline pilot, Mr. Adler brings extensive industry experience that helps guide clients through aircraft operational structures and FAA regulatory compliance. Currently a member of Holland & Knight’s Asset Finance Group, Mr. Adler’s practice spans assetbased financing, leases, novations, and aircraft purchases and sales – combining his passion for aviation with his legal knowledge and experience.

Libby Bloxom’s practice involves assisting clients in corporate jet transactions and structuring of corporate aircraft operations to comply with FAA regulations, as well as a broad range of international trade regulatory and transactional matters. She assists clients with aircraft export clearance and customs issues, and helped draft guidance for the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) on these issues.

Corporate Jet Practice 29

Private and Business Aircraft Practive Primary Contacts | CO NT I NUED

Emily Marie Earnshaw Associate | Dallas +1.214.969.2549 emily.earnshaw@hklaw.com

Kate Minnich Associate | Dallas +1.214.969.1225 kate.minnich@hklaw.com

Andrew M. Piper Associate | Miami +1.305.789.7547 andrew.piper@hklaw.com

Anna Vizniak Associate | New York +1 202.469.5667 anna.vizniak@hklaw.com

30 Holland & Knight

Emily Earnshaw is a tax associate with Holland & Knight who represents taxpayers in all stages of a federal or state tax dispute, including audits, administrative appeals and tax litigation. She has experience in advising a broad range of clients, including owners of private aircraft in their IRS audits and appeals.

Kate Minnich is a tax attorney who represents clients in complex federal and state tax disputes including audits, administrative appeals and litigation. She has experience in advising owners of private aircraft in IRS audit proceedings and assisting air carriers in their compliance with state and federal tax obligations.

Andrew M. Piper is a private wealth services and international tax attorney in Holland & Knight’s Miami office. Mr. Piper advises foreign and domestic clients on U.S. federal income, gift and estate tax matters, including those associated with their cross-border investments and business interests.

Anna Vizniak is a business attorney who assists clients with a variety of corporate jet transactions, including drafting and negotiating transactional documents for aircraft acquisition, fractional ownership and leasing. She also helps structure aircraft operations to ensure compliance with the FAA regulations. Additionally, she advises on export-import, sanctions and customs matters related to aircraft operation and maintenance.

Corporate Jet Practice 31

www.hklaw.com