Official Copy Of Letter Re: Non Rev Taxation!

Dec 21, 2002
395
0
www.usaviation.com
John M. lledblom
Vice President
Human Resources Policy
and Development

October 21, 2003


Dear US Airways Furloughee:

When you left US Airways, the company was pleased to offer you travel privileges for a defined period of time as part of your furlough package. However, due to tax law, we are required to begin to tax the value of your space available travel. Therefore, beginning November 1, 2()03, for travel occurring after October 31, 2003, we will impute taxable income for space available travel by all involuntarily furloughed employees (and eligible family members) who have been on involuntary furlough status for more than one year and continue to have travel privileges.

How Does Imputed Income Work?
As required by the Internal Revenue Code, Section 6 1(aX I), you will be deemed to have received taxable income on the fair market value of any travel occurring after October 31, 2003. The current fair market value is considered to be 10% of the highest, unrestricted US Airways coach class fare available for sale on the date of travel. This is consistent with our valuation for companion passes, the domestic partner program and other programs.

As an example, if you were to travel from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles through Pittsburgh, the imputed income on your travel would be calculated as follows:

DCA-PIT Y-8 fare is $400 and 10% of that fare is PIT LAX Y-8 fare is $800 and 10% of that fare is
Total Imputed Income
Total Tax Liability at 28% rate
$ 40.00
$ 80.00
$120.00
$ 33.60*

* This example assumes a tax rate of 28%, but the federal and state income taxes on this amount of imputed income will vary depending on your tax bracket, and your rate will ultimately determine the amount of tax you will be responsible for. The fares in this example are approximate and for illustrative purposes only.

In January of each year, if the value of your total travel exceeds $600, you will receive a Form 1099 from the Company that will reflect the taxable income to you for the travel by you and your eligible family members in the prior year. If the value is under $600, you will receive an information statement showing the taxable value. You must report this taxable income to the Internal Revenue Service on your individual income tax return.

If you have questions regarding the imputed income, a Q & A is available on theHub. Sincerely,



John M. Hedblom





So there you have it ...for those who misinterpreted the new policy, here it is in black and white, it is not a 10pct tax on fair mkt value as 330 Jet Stew alluded to in his/her attempt to set the record straight as did PITBULL who stated this in error as well. The Y8 fare per seg flown is computed at 10pct, and added up every calendar tax year to create additional income for your tax return.Then you are subject to whatever tax your personal state in life treats you to. For me personally it ends up about 15-20percent based on several decent sized deductions for house,PP etc... So if I fly a thousand dollars worth of imputed travel benefits next year(unlikely, since I only flew 5 times in 2003 for approximate 600.00 in imputed value, i.e. 6000.00 dollars worth of Y8 travel), I will be taxed about 150-200 dollars for my tax bracket for 2004. Yes it sucks and I hope perhaps somehow it will be reversed or found illegal/improper/unfair to enforce.
 
Yes, it sucks and should have been mentioned when people agreed to take a 3 year furlough. Another example of the rules changing half way through the game.
That said...welcome to my world. While I am grateful that the company joined the 21st century and offers my domestic partner travel benefits; I have been paying that imputed salary tax for years now. I sit next to Sally Stewardess on a flight to London flying for free with her husband, parents and 5 children. My partner joins me and it shows up on my W-2.
Not that I am bitter...just curious as to where the outrage was 4 years ago when I started to pay taxes on my 'spouses' travel.
 
goodstew said:
Yes, it sucks and should have been mentioned when people agreed to take a 3 year furlough. Another example of the rules changing half way through the game.
That said...welcome to my world. While I am grateful that the company joined the 21st century and offers my domestic partner travel benefits; I have been paying that imputed salary tax for years now. I sit next to Sally Stewardess on a flight to London flying for free with her husband, parents and 5 children. My partner joins me and it shows up on my W-2.
Not that I am bitter...just curious as to where the outrage was 4 years ago when I started to pay taxes on my 'spouses' travel.
:rolleyes: Yes it is not right that domestic partner status is different than "married"!! However you might be in luck for your travel, read closly, I believe it addresses INvoluntairly furloughed not VOLUNTARY>>> I hope this helps!!
 
This is an IRS thing not a US management thing. My company has been cracking down big time lately on people who should be paying taxes on airfare. For example, I make a weekly commute DCA-SEA. The company reimburses me for the ticket, and this reimbursment is not taxable unless I'm on this SEA project for more than a year. However, if I fly someone out in lieu of coming home or if I choose to go somewhere else on the weekend (instead of going home), the entire fare is considered taxable. I'm still reimbursed, but the reimbursement is included in my gross income.
 
I hazard an educated guess that VOLS got a similar letter to the INVOLS, as indicated in the other topic. I cannot fathom there being a tax law difference between those who invol'd and those who didn't,...the IRS is not that smart or thorough about this issue, at least I don't think they are. I suppose a call to the IRS to an educated rep might shed better light on the truth.I may just do that if I don't find the info on the WWW.
 
couple of thoughts guys....I have never been furloughed, vol or invol. have been putting my time in every month and pay for whenever my partner flies.
also, have friends who have been out for 3 years and have not ever paid any taxes. I think the company was 'eating' this until now because they agreed to the travel benefits when Gangwal was around. Someone realized this and decided to squeeze a few more pennies out of the employees. Where were all the IRS tax laws then? All of a sudden the attitude is "It's out of our hands, sorry employees, the IRS is making us do this! wink wink"
 
Shouldn't the imputed income rule also apply to active employees as well??(not advocating it just an observation)... A benefit is a benefit no matter how you slice it. If one person is taxed so should another, active versus inactive.
I find it difficult to believe that the IRS set a different precedent in these situations depending on employment status.Would be interesting to see if OA implemented this policy as well.
 
...and if it's an IRS thing, why is the first year of furlough travel considered non-taxable? I doubt the IRS cares how long you are out. Wouldn't they want the money right away? I smell a rat (or is it a dirty seagull?)
 
Email from CWA today.



CWA objects to charging furloughed employees for taxes related to their pass travel benefits...
John M. Hedblom
Vice President, Human Resources Policy and Development
US Airways, Inc.
2345 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22227


Dear Mr. Hedblom:
I have reviewed a copy of the letter of October 21, 2003 that US Airways sent to involuntarily furloughed Passenger Service Employees. In that letter, US Airways states that it will begin to require involuntarily furloughed employees to pay state and federal income taxes on their use of travel benefits after October 31, 2003.
It is CWA’s position that 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1), the Internal Revenue Code section that you cited in your letter, does not require US Airways to require involuntarily furloughed employees to pay for the state and local taxes arising from the use of travel benefits. Indeed, the Code does not speak to that issue at all. By contract as well as past practice, US Airways has never required employees, active or furloughed, to pay any portion of state or federal income taxes on the use of travel benefits, presumably because it has paid any taxes arising from this use itself. US Airways breaches the contract when it seeks to change this material term of employment without first bargaining about this issue.
Accordingly, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your new policy regarding the payment of taxes on travel benefits. If we are unable to resolve this issue, I am afraid CWA will be required to arbitrate this matter to protect its rights under the contract and past practice.
Very truly yours,
Nicolas M. Manicone
Headquarters Counsel
 

Latest posts