Pollocknbrown
Well-Known Member
None of the contents was missing ??? So this was a joy ride ??
Maybe didn't have bolt cutters to open the locks put on the backs of the trailers?
Maybe didn't have bolt cutters to open the locks put on the backs of the trailers?
moreluck
golden ticket member
FedEx hit with $319 million tax hit
IRS finds that delivery company misreported its employees as independent contractors in 2002 and must pay back taxes.
December 21 2007: 7:03 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- FedEx was ordered to pay $319 million in back taxes by the IRS over a disagreement on how the company classified workers for its ground-delivery business, it said in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday.
The IRS ruled that in 2002 workers that FedEx considered independent contractors were actually employees of the company, requiring them to pay back taxes for the year.
FedEx said in its filing that it will appeal the decision. It also said the IRS is continuing to look into its employee reporting practices for the years 2004 through 2006.
FedEx faces numerous lawsuits across the country because it classifies its drivers as contractors rather than full employees.
IRS finds that delivery company misreported its employees as independent contractors in 2002 and must pay back taxes.
December 21 2007: 7:03 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- FedEx was ordered to pay $319 million in back taxes by the IRS over a disagreement on how the company classified workers for its ground-delivery business, it said in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday.
The IRS ruled that in 2002 workers that FedEx considered independent contractors were actually employees of the company, requiring them to pay back taxes for the year.
FedEx said in its filing that it will appeal the decision. It also said the IRS is continuing to look into its employee reporting practices for the years 2004 through 2006.
FedEx faces numerous lawsuits across the country because it classifies its drivers as contractors rather than full employees.
moreluck
golden ticket member
"The IRS has indicated that it anticipates tax and penalties of $319 million plus interest for 2002," FedEx said. "Similar issues are under audit by the IRS for calendar years 2004 through 2006."
Looks like it could get even more costly once they figure up the years 2004-2006 !!
Looks like it could get even more costly once they figure up the years 2004-2006 !!
Pollocknbrown
Well-Known Member
ouch, say good bye to this years profits to cover the back taxes and interest and what not..... gotta love the IRS.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Another article today......
FedEx shares dip 2 percent on IRS back tax of $319 million
Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:07pm EST
CHICAGO (Reuters) - FedEx Corp shares dipped more than 2 percent on Monday following news late Friday that U.S. tax authorities had found the company owed more than $319 million in taxes and penalties for 2002 related to its independent contractor model at FedEx Ground.
Estimates vary for how much FedEx may eventually asked to pay the U.S. Internal Revenue Service -- which is now reviewing FedEx's results for calendar years 2004 to 2006 -- but Credit Suisse analyst Jason Seidl wrote in a research note to clients entitled "FedEx Gets Coal in its Stocking" that the company "could potentially owe nearly $1.5 billion in taxes and expenses when all audits are completed."
The Memphis-based company reported the IRS's finding in a regulatory filing Friday, saying that the federal tax authority had "tentatively concluded" that the 15,000 independent contractors FedEx Ground uses as drivers should be reclassified as employees.
FedEx said in the filing it aims to "vigorously defend" its position.
The use of independent contractors allows FedEx to save money and compete with its main rival, Atlanta-based United Parcel Service Inc, whose drivers are unionized.
But that cost-saving model has come under attack from a number of different directions.
In a research note, Bear Stearns analyst Edward Wolfe wrote, "In recent months FedEx has been stung by a series of decisions, filings and directives which claim that FedEx exercises too much control over its Ground Drivers for them to be classified as contractors."
FedEx's use of contractors is also the focus of lawsuits in 36 U.S. states, brought by some current and former FedEx Ground drivers, alleging the level of control the company exercised over their work qualified them as employees and the benefits that go with that status.
In late November California's Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from FedEx seeking to overturn a state court ruling that said FedEx Ground drivers should be reclassified as employees.
That ruling focuses on single-route contractors, but does not include multi-route contractors. A multi-route contractor owns a number of routes and acts as an employer for other drivers.
FedEx has been offering incentives for drivers in California to become multi-route contractors. Credit Suisse's Seidl estimated that should the package delivery company have to offer the same deal nationwide, it could cost between $250 million and $430 million.
The company also faces attempts by the Teamsters union, which represents drivers at UPS, to unionize its workers.
Lawyers representing drivers in the California case and elsewhere welcomed the news of the IRS' finding, estimating it could ultimately cost FedEx more than $1 billion.
"The drivers have been shouldering FedEx's tax burden for far too long," legal counsel Lynn Rossman Faris said in a statement. "We hope that the government continues to vigorously pursue justice for the drivers, all American taxpayers and responsible employers."
In a separate note in its regulatory filing on Friday, FedEx also said it had received a grand jury subpoena in December as part of a U.S. Department of Justice criminal antitrust probe. The probe is looking into possible anti-competitive actions in the international air freight forwarding industry.
"We do not believe that we have engaged in any anti-competitive activities, and we are cooperating with these investigations," FedEx said in the filing.
FedEx shares were down $2.04, or 2.2 percent, at $92.25 in late morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
(Reporting by Nick Carey, editing by Brian Moss)
FedEx shares dip 2 percent on IRS back tax of $319 million
Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:07pm EST
CHICAGO (Reuters) - FedEx Corp shares dipped more than 2 percent on Monday following news late Friday that U.S. tax authorities had found the company owed more than $319 million in taxes and penalties for 2002 related to its independent contractor model at FedEx Ground.
Estimates vary for how much FedEx may eventually asked to pay the U.S. Internal Revenue Service -- which is now reviewing FedEx's results for calendar years 2004 to 2006 -- but Credit Suisse analyst Jason Seidl wrote in a research note to clients entitled "FedEx Gets Coal in its Stocking" that the company "could potentially owe nearly $1.5 billion in taxes and expenses when all audits are completed."
The Memphis-based company reported the IRS's finding in a regulatory filing Friday, saying that the federal tax authority had "tentatively concluded" that the 15,000 independent contractors FedEx Ground uses as drivers should be reclassified as employees.
FedEx said in the filing it aims to "vigorously defend" its position.
The use of independent contractors allows FedEx to save money and compete with its main rival, Atlanta-based United Parcel Service Inc, whose drivers are unionized.
But that cost-saving model has come under attack from a number of different directions.
In a research note, Bear Stearns analyst Edward Wolfe wrote, "In recent months FedEx has been stung by a series of decisions, filings and directives which claim that FedEx exercises too much control over its Ground Drivers for them to be classified as contractors."
FedEx's use of contractors is also the focus of lawsuits in 36 U.S. states, brought by some current and former FedEx Ground drivers, alleging the level of control the company exercised over their work qualified them as employees and the benefits that go with that status.
In late November California's Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from FedEx seeking to overturn a state court ruling that said FedEx Ground drivers should be reclassified as employees.
That ruling focuses on single-route contractors, but does not include multi-route contractors. A multi-route contractor owns a number of routes and acts as an employer for other drivers.
FedEx has been offering incentives for drivers in California to become multi-route contractors. Credit Suisse's Seidl estimated that should the package delivery company have to offer the same deal nationwide, it could cost between $250 million and $430 million.
The company also faces attempts by the Teamsters union, which represents drivers at UPS, to unionize its workers.
Lawyers representing drivers in the California case and elsewhere welcomed the news of the IRS' finding, estimating it could ultimately cost FedEx more than $1 billion.
"The drivers have been shouldering FedEx's tax burden for far too long," legal counsel Lynn Rossman Faris said in a statement. "We hope that the government continues to vigorously pursue justice for the drivers, all American taxpayers and responsible employers."
In a separate note in its regulatory filing on Friday, FedEx also said it had received a grand jury subpoena in December as part of a U.S. Department of Justice criminal antitrust probe. The probe is looking into possible anti-competitive actions in the international air freight forwarding industry.
"We do not believe that we have engaged in any anti-competitive activities, and we are cooperating with these investigations," FedEx said in the filing.
FedEx shares were down $2.04, or 2.2 percent, at $92.25 in late morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
(Reporting by Nick Carey, editing by Brian Moss)
Big Babooba
Well-Known Member
Are you an actual employee of FedEx Ground or of a contractor. I was told that the inside people were provided by contractors. I was also told that the NLRB does not allow contractors to unionize. That is the main reason that there has been no real effort to unionize FedEx Ground until now. The reclassification of the driver/contractor has opened the door. I may be wrong and if I am please let me know. (gently)
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
wasnt ups hit with over 1 billion dollar IRS payment a few years back. I think fedex spins their numbers for wall street. Its very interesting how their stock has jumped so much in the last couple of years, and how many companies they have bought in the last few years. They have many employees, most make good money, they arent making 10 dollars an hour. Management there make as much as ups mgt. They seem to have the cash for things like fedex racing, fedex golf, they do lots of big name advertising, that copy center cost over 1 billion. It all just seems a little off.
Coldworld
Well-Known Member
After 9-11, the govt gave money to fedex,(not sure if ups received any) because of their planes being grounded. I remember that after the fact, the government wanted like 20-30 million back for some reason, and there was a big story of how fedex didnt want to give it up for what ever reason. Interesting, because 20 million is nothing for a mulit-billion dollar company, another reason why its not all legit over there.
moreluck
golden ticket member
(approx: $4.6 million)
FedEx Officer Bronczek Exercises Options
Monday December 31, 12:55 pm ET FedEx Subsidiary President, CEO David J. Bronczek Exercises Options for 50,000 Shares
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The president and chief executive of FedEx Express, a subsidiary of shipping company FedEx Corp., exercised options for 50,000 shares of common stock, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
In a Form 4 filed Friday with the SEC, David J. Bronczek reported he exercised the options Wednesday for $31.98 apiece and then sold all 50,000 shares on the same day for $92.04 to $92.24 apiece.
Insiders file Form 4s with the SEC to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
FedEx is based in Memphis, Tenn.
FedEx Officer Bronczek Exercises Options
Monday December 31, 12:55 pm ET FedEx Subsidiary President, CEO David J. Bronczek Exercises Options for 50,000 Shares
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The president and chief executive of FedEx Express, a subsidiary of shipping company FedEx Corp., exercised options for 50,000 shares of common stock, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
In a Form 4 filed Friday with the SEC, David J. Bronczek reported he exercised the options Wednesday for $31.98 apiece and then sold all 50,000 shares on the same day for $92.04 to $92.24 apiece.
Insiders file Form 4s with the SEC to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
FedEx is based in Memphis, Tenn.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Isn't it curious that the CEO of FedEx Express would dump his stock just before it dropped substantially? As this whole Ground escapade unfolds, watch FedEx stock plummet when the full extent of their liabilty is revealed. What gets me is that they are still trying to keep the contractor model alive, albeit in a slightly altered form. They just won't give up on the concept of pawning-off all of their costs onto a "contractor".
After many years of working for the Express division of FedEx it really seems to me that the big shots of the corporation truly feel they are above the law. They have long relied on Mr Smith's political connections to bail them out of hot water and to ensure the passage of favorable legislation.FedEx corporate aircraft have been shuttling obsequient politicians around the world for years (the other FedEx airline)while Smith either lines their pockets or bankrolls their campaigns. When Smith successfully lobbied his politicians to overturn the attempt to re-classify FedEx Express out of the Railway Labor Act in the mid 90's, Ted Kennedy called it one of the sneakiest and low-down moves in corporate history. By tacking the RLA provision onto another bill, they snuck it under the radar. The Teamsters, who had pushed fairly hard for the change, suddenly disappeared, leaving those of us who had supported them in the lurch.
I really think that this is the year FedEx pays for it's transgressions. A very soft peak for the Express division, combined with fuel cost hikes that surcharges won't cover, and all of the legal problems with both the Express and Ground sides means BIG payouts. Several new class-action suits in the wings have the potential to hit hard.
And if the Teamsters would ever get off their collective asses and do something about getting FedEx Express under the NLRA, there would really be problems. Sometimes I wonder if Smith has successfully funneled money to Teamster leadership in exchange for backing-off on trying to unionize the company. The Teamsters have been standing on the sidelines doing basically nothing....why?
After many years of working for the Express division of FedEx it really seems to me that the big shots of the corporation truly feel they are above the law. They have long relied on Mr Smith's political connections to bail them out of hot water and to ensure the passage of favorable legislation.FedEx corporate aircraft have been shuttling obsequient politicians around the world for years (the other FedEx airline)while Smith either lines their pockets or bankrolls their campaigns. When Smith successfully lobbied his politicians to overturn the attempt to re-classify FedEx Express out of the Railway Labor Act in the mid 90's, Ted Kennedy called it one of the sneakiest and low-down moves in corporate history. By tacking the RLA provision onto another bill, they snuck it under the radar. The Teamsters, who had pushed fairly hard for the change, suddenly disappeared, leaving those of us who had supported them in the lurch.
I really think that this is the year FedEx pays for it's transgressions. A very soft peak for the Express division, combined with fuel cost hikes that surcharges won't cover, and all of the legal problems with both the Express and Ground sides means BIG payouts. Several new class-action suits in the wings have the potential to hit hard.
And if the Teamsters would ever get off their collective asses and do something about getting FedEx Express under the NLRA, there would really be problems. Sometimes I wonder if Smith has successfully funneled money to Teamster leadership in exchange for backing-off on trying to unionize the company. The Teamsters have been standing on the sidelines doing basically nothing....why?
moreluck
golden ticket member
AP
FedEx Workers Can Sue Over Age Bias
Thursday February 28, 9:13 am ET
By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer
Supreme Court Says FedEx Employees Can Sue Over Age Discrimination
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court decided Wednesday that employees who claim job discrimination should not suffer because of mistakes made by the federal agency charged with investigating their allegations.
The 7-2 ruling allows an age discrimination lawsuit to proceed against FedEx Corp.
The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy is critical of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which failed to notify FedEx that 14 employees had filed a complaint. Companies must be told about complaints before discrimination lawsuits can be filed.
As a result of the EEOC's failure to notify, the two sides lost the chance to engage in an informal dispute resolution process.
The lower court that will now hear the case "can attempt to remedy this deficiency" by allowing for conciliation and possible settlement, Kennedy wrote.
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the majority of the court is effectively absolving the EEOC of its obligation to administer the law correctly. Thomas, who led the EEOC in the 1980s, was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.
The EEOC has acknowledged it erred in this case, and others, and has said it has tightened its procedures to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
"The EEOC has taken steps to ensure timely notification to respondents of receipt of intake questionnaires or other correspondence that constitute charges," EEOC spokesman David Grinberg said Wednesday.
Federal law requires plaintiffs to file a complaint with the EEOC and wait 60 days before they sue an employer. The law is intended to give the EEOC the opportunity to notify the company accused of discrimination, investigate the charges and seek to resolve them before a suit is filed.
The FedEx employees said FedEx courier Patricia Kennedy filed a form with the EEOC in December 2001 that included the information necessary to comply with that law and said the suit she and her colleagues filed in April 2002 should be allowed to proceed.
A district court dismissed the case, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York City, ruled in March 2006 that the case should be allowed to proceed. The court found that the EEOC's failure to follow through on Kennedy's complaint and notify FedEx should not preclude the plaintiffs' right to sue.
"While we are disappointed in the decision, we respect the court's ruling and we'll proceed with this matter as ordered," FedEx Corp. spokesman Jim McCluskey said.
The case is Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 06-1322.
FedEx Workers Can Sue Over Age Bias
Thursday February 28, 9:13 am ET
By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer
Supreme Court Says FedEx Employees Can Sue Over Age Discrimination
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court decided Wednesday that employees who claim job discrimination should not suffer because of mistakes made by the federal agency charged with investigating their allegations.
The 7-2 ruling allows an age discrimination lawsuit to proceed against FedEx Corp.
The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy is critical of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which failed to notify FedEx that 14 employees had filed a complaint. Companies must be told about complaints before discrimination lawsuits can be filed.
As a result of the EEOC's failure to notify, the two sides lost the chance to engage in an informal dispute resolution process.
The lower court that will now hear the case "can attempt to remedy this deficiency" by allowing for conciliation and possible settlement, Kennedy wrote.
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the majority of the court is effectively absolving the EEOC of its obligation to administer the law correctly. Thomas, who led the EEOC in the 1980s, was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.
The EEOC has acknowledged it erred in this case, and others, and has said it has tightened its procedures to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
"The EEOC has taken steps to ensure timely notification to respondents of receipt of intake questionnaires or other correspondence that constitute charges," EEOC spokesman David Grinberg said Wednesday.
Federal law requires plaintiffs to file a complaint with the EEOC and wait 60 days before they sue an employer. The law is intended to give the EEOC the opportunity to notify the company accused of discrimination, investigate the charges and seek to resolve them before a suit is filed.
The FedEx employees said FedEx courier Patricia Kennedy filed a form with the EEOC in December 2001 that included the information necessary to comply with that law and said the suit she and her colleagues filed in April 2002 should be allowed to proceed.
A district court dismissed the case, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York City, ruled in March 2006 that the case should be allowed to proceed. The court found that the EEOC's failure to follow through on Kennedy's complaint and notify FedEx should not preclude the plaintiffs' right to sue.
"While we are disappointed in the decision, we respect the court's ruling and we'll proceed with this matter as ordered," FedEx Corp. spokesman Jim McCluskey said.
The case is Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 06-1322.
I have a Fedex Home Delivery contractor that lives on my route. On Mondays, he used to have four trucks in his driveway and he was usually home the rest of the week because he had four drivers working for him. Now he is down to two trucks, and I never see him.
Maybe never.
I Am Jacks Damaged Box
***** Club Member (can't talk about it)
I Am Jacks Damaged Box
***** Club Member (can't talk about it)
Agreed. I'm just posting in the spirit of Necropostophiliac. He hasn't been making the rounds quite like he used to.
