Originally Posted by
jsloan
The problem is, the correct number isn't on the receipt. That's illegal, even though the footnote is present to indicate that the table shouldn't apply.
Originally Posted by
fumje
For the record, I didn't mean I would let UA 'out of jail' with that footnote, but rather that I think UA is hoping it serves as an adequate fig leaf when they can't figure out how to make a proper receipt. But even so, it is still unclear what that footnote means.
It's a reasonable bet this is indeed a weak effort by UA to loophole itself out of the reg.
Given the nifty things UA is able to accomplish with its IT when it actually tries, it's really not excusable this hasn't been properly fixed.