FINANCIAL RIP OFF/RAPE BY UNIMARK, JOPLIN, mo

You really don't think its that simple do you?

 

I broke it up a bit making the prose easier to read.

Unimark is the 'work in progress' of JHT Holdings 'vision' of new truck hauling. Iron Tiger Logistics is the intermediate step with 1099 'favorites' getting the lucrative trips (if they haven't already quit) while the IAM 'represented' drivers are offered what's left. ITL is using an obscene number of 'contractors' due to massive turnover on both sides of the labor equation.

Another JHT Holdings creation, Auto Truck Transport USA (IAM), was 'created' (double breasted) to put the IBT represented companies (also JHT owned) out of the new truck haul market.

Active Transport USA is the only IBT represented new truck hauler left and they only have one account, PACCAR. Active also does some lowboy work and new car haul also.

*****************************

It's been quite a ride. What I've found most interesting is JHT's use of 'shills' and 'special ops' people, many of who we speculate are provided by an outside source.

 

Rollover: maybe I did not make my point clear about the fuel/receipt issue situation. The issue is, they have not disclosed to you that unimark is shifting the responsibility of the fuel cost to you, with the tax liability. It is immaterial that you "copy" the receipt and send in, it must be the original. Concerning your comment about Comdata, do you honestly think Unimark is not familiar with their system, please. The driver receives monthly a Comdata report for the card activity, however you may have inadvertantly missed my point, that they have "attached" your name to the card so the reports reflect "your" activity. Unimark has gone out of their way to create the appearance that you bought the fuel to begin with. So as not to offend your sensibilities, please read my original segment again, and get the "big" picture.

 

Ambivalence: JHT would appear to be adherents of the Hegelian concept of "controlled conflict". I find it fascinating that any of the manufacturers can honestly believe that the various "holdings" such as ATT, Active, Unimark are all separate and competing entities. Like I have said before, how does this group evade anti-trust law, RICO, etc. Then add the complicity of the Unions. Historically, while saying rah rah to the membership, the union leadership is in "bed" with the companies. Does anyone honestly believe the union hierarchy is going to give their 100k+ salary and expenses up for you? I think not, they play both sides.

 

Actually it is that easy,................

 

Just so I get the "big" picture please explain if I'm wrong~they show fuel as an advance to you (nothing wrong with this) Then you send in the reciept. So your telling us you can't deduct it? Why? I fuel w/company card and have NEVER gotten a reciept. The transaction is on the card as proof to the IRS and is deducted every year by me. Yes I'm a O/O~Contractor. So explain.

 

Heavy dude, first of all this not an opinion. I am merely relating a "fact pattern". First and foremost this pertains to the Unimark situation as stated. Once again, the statement by Unimark is " we buy the fuel". Your fuel card states on its face "unimark truck transport, Joplin Mo. fuel only", got it. Now when you take a load, they load lets say 500 on the card. When you finish, let us say the total fuel cost is 400, unimark backs off the 100 not spent. Now when you receive the settlement paperwork, there is a column headed reimbursements. Under that column are the categories and amounts, in this case 400 fuel. Unimark tells you that you must submit the original fuel receipt and keep a copy for your "taxes". Now, while sitting across from an officer of the IRS, I asked "one cannot deduct this fuel expense when the receipt is in someone elses name, is that correct?" Answer, "that is correct since the receipt must be in your name, because in the event of an audit you must produce original receipts in your name". Don't know your situation, may not fit this scenario, however, these are facts as previously stated. I am in no need of "winning any arguments" . "When you have no basis for arguement, abuse the plaintiff" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
P.S. Think about it for a moment, if the IRS did allow deductions with receipts in other peoples names you could go around harvesting them and deduct yourself silly, if you are willing to take the risk! What is interesting though is reimbursements are not supposed to be taxable to you as income, however as originally stated this is what they have done at unimark. Another example, unimark states they pay (reimburse) for washer fluid, oil, tranny fluid, so you have to be tickled when the $3 bottle of washer fluid shows up as taxable income to you and you had to turn in the original to get reimbursed.

 

I get it and NOBODY should ever be an O/O unless you own the truck outright and have your own authority and can set your own rates.... That would be the only way to roll....

 

$500 dollars is advanced to you~you spend $400~they back out $100~reimburse you $400~ your even. Since your even no taxes are due or reciepts needed.

 

Heavy Dude: Maybe we can look at the scenario another way. Let us say your agreement is that you will receive $1/mile to deliver trucks on a 1000/mi run, you will receive $1000 dollars (less cash advances). If you did this run as your first one late in Dec, and it was the only one for this year you will receive a 1099 for $1000, correct? Look, if they "buy the fuel" you should never "see" the cost of the fuel as income to you. So, is there a possibility they are "loading you up" with the fuel cost as income and taking a pre-tax deduction for it, and in addition deducting the actual cost of fuel at the other end as a second deduction? We will find out when the IRS completes their investigation/forensic audit of their corporate tax returns. I for one am anxious to find out, and will post the results. Here is the reality from sitting down with the IRS I have the tax liability on all the fuel purchased and cannot deduct it because I don't have receipts in MY NAME, their rule not mine. Let me conclude by saying, all I did was supply the labor, I did not lease any equipment to them and was not therefore an "owner operator". This would be another story, supplemental to the aforementioned.