DJ_Iceman

Some have argued this situation comes down to a risk assessment--call me a Boy Scout (and I was), but to me it is a matter of ethics. This isn't even a grey area, it's a clear matter of right and wrong. Unless the OP gets an e-mail back from HR telling them to go ahead and use those travel credits, there is absolutely no question they belong to the company, not to the OP. So the OP using them for personal travel is wrong, plain and simple.

I know people do "wrong" things all the time, and maybe to them it's a matter of risk assessment. I guess I do the same every time I drive over the speed limit. But for someone to come here and (let me paraphrase) ask "If I steal a few hundred bucks from my soon-to-be-former employer, is that okay?", really rubs me the wrong way. No, it's not okay.

Often1

This.

There is no question but that this is some form of theft or fraud, all depending on how look at it.

There is a question as to whether you will get caught.

The bottom line is whether one is willing to commit a felony against the chance -- high or low -- that one won't get caught.

The rest is all self-justification.

seawolf

If ethics was a concern, OP wouldn't have even started the thread.

It's not difficult. Go back to the money trail. Where did the money come from and what was the intent of those funds. The rest if just noise. If the unused ticket does go expire, then it's the employer's money to go expire. At no point does ownership transfer over unless employer specifically indicated so.

Another way to look at it is if you have to talk about risk assessment, what the employer may/may not do, what the worst that can happen, that's a sign that perhaps you should not be doing whatever it is you are considering.

As I said before, using a $300 credit as an example. That equates to 42 reams of paper. Most people wouldn't walk out with 42 reams from the office or from Staples as that is considered flat out theft. If that is theft, then embezzling a $300 credit is also theft.

I agree. OP's posts were just different takes on rationalizing/justifying/seeking validation.

jmanrunner

I was a Boy Scout too when I was a teenager. I am guessing most would agree that a contract of carriage does not always meet the "Boy Scout" standard of fairness for all parties but yet that is where this starts to head as an argument of "ownership." Typical contract of carriage is with the passenger and the airline. The company releases some rights when they book the ticket which is how this is not the same thing as stealing from the company. It is likely more along the terms of a conveyance from the company to the airline and subsequently to the employee. Maybe this is covered deep in the weeds of a contract on how these funds should be reconciled but that is rarely made clear to the passenger/employee and the airline treats the flight credit as a financial credit to the passenger when it goes unused. The airline knows the contract terms and they clearly know how the ticket was issued yet they assign the flight credit to the passenger anyway. I do not disagree that this is income to the OP and should be claimed as income but how I characterize the income versus a distributed 1099 varies. Just because you receive a 1099 from an entity does not make it valid. If anything the airline should be issuing the 1099 to the passenger as they are the flight credit disbursing entity to the passenger, if the credit is used.

Evidence is clear that speeding kills and yet rationalization is fine because it fits the objective of the moment. A little fudging of ethics here and there because no one got hurt. The primary fact is that the credit is in my name. Of disputed secondary facts are that the company forfeited the use of the credit with termination of employment. If this were really the illegal trope so many espouse there would be motivation from the airlines to not be caught in the middle of it. If someone feels it is not in their best interest to use the flight credit because they have perceived an ethical dilemma then go along that path and do not use it. Speed when driving if it fits the need as well. There are so many arguments for rationalizations of any action.

The OP asked if this was a usable flight credit and the technical answer is yes because it is in their name with the airline. The full weight of the legal system has various answers and is still muddy enough that all the opinions are valid enough to claim it is risky behavior bordering on unethical. However, if you believe otherwise, it could also be true that unused credits after employment ends and are in your name are eligible to be used by the airlines with little to no risk involved.

The concept of potential conveyance and lack of proper accounting for income is also some of the reasons that many in Congress occasionally argue to implement taxes on employee travel benefits as income.

Often1

Sorry, there is no murky or gray area on the following:

1. Using these credits creates income for OP.
2. If the former employer permits it, the former employer must recharacterize the expense item it created when it paid for the tickets.
3. The conduct is wire fraud (theft for these purposes).

Analogies to speeding and discussions about whether the credits are useable by others are irrelevant.

jmanrunner

Nothing was obtained through false pretenses. It was deposited under the OP's name by the airline as a flight credit. There is no explicit or express reference at the airline that it must only be used for business travel either. The agreement for business travel use was between the employer and employee while employed. The termination of the employment ended that agreement and the forfeited funds became available for unencumbered use.

WineCountryUA

This thread seems to have outlived it usefulness. A variety of opinions have been expressed and provided the OP with things to consider. Some comments have stretched the limits of the FT rules. All in all, there seems little good to the community in continuing this thread.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator