Originally Posted by
flyingcrooked
I'm puzzled at why that would be reasonable. Could you elaborate? E.g. doesn't the employer cover the expenses you incur (and are obliged to incur), not the expenses you could have incurred in some different situation that was impossible to realise?
If it were cheaper to drive from Toronto to Buffalo than fly, but for some reason the land border was closed, would you buy a flight but then only ask your employer to reimburse you the lower cost that would have been incurred had you driven, which you couldn't? I struggle to see how this could be reasonable.
Seems to me the point that is missed here is that what is reimbursed for use of personal vehicle is not an out of pocket expense but some more or less arbitrary accounting value, much higher than what the OP (and I) perceive as the actual out of pocket cost. Hence not wanted to "abuse" the system by making money out of it, even though the rules would allow for it.