Originally Posted by CaptDave

I applied at Atlas once. Then I read their contract on the imputed income. In 40yrs of life, I’ve never heard of an airline pulling something that shady. If they buy your ticket to work/hotel for being there, that’s the COST of doing business. The pilot is not using the benefit of hotels/travel for personal use, so it’s definitely not income. Seriously, if anyone thinks imputed income is an industry normal, please name some other airlines that are doing the same? Name another company (outside of aviation) that does imputed income to its employees?


One online CPA source says it this way referencing a company-owned car: “When an employee uses a company vehicle for business purposes, the vehicle use is a working condition fringe benefit. This means the value of using the vehicle isn’t included in the employee’s income, nor is it taxed.

But, when an employee uses a company vehicle for personal reasons, you generally must include the value of using the vehicle in the employee’s income. And, you must withhold taxes on the value of the benefit.”

Furthermore, “The IRS defines imputed income as the value of any benefits or services provided to an employee. The value of this cash or non-cash compensation must be considered in order to accurately reflect an individual’s taxable income.

Employees can have income tax withheld for their imputed income or pay the amount due with their tax installment payments. Examples of imputed income are:

Dependent care assistance exceeding the tax-free amount,
Health and dental insurance for non-dependent domestic partners or same-sex partners or spouses,
Basic or group life insurance in excess of $50,000,
Personal use of company or employer-provided car,
Non-deductible moving expense reimbursements,
Educational assistance exceeding the excluded amount, and
Below market rate loans.“

I get it. It’s in the contract and that the company does it but my question is why do the Atlas pilots continue to show up for work of their income is being “imputed” to the point of poverty? At this point, you have to question the decision making of anyone that shows up to work under those rules because it just perpetuates managements ability to keep doing it.

Almost everyone is hiring....

(I don’t work for Atlas, nor do I have a dog in the fight, I just don’t understand why good pilots continue to be shat upon by a company like this?)

Originally Posted by A Squared

Thanks. So, why is this being described as something punitive the company is doing to the pilot group? I'm not a tax expert by any means, but this is more or less what I would expect would be required by the tax code if the company is housing you in domicile and providing you with airline travel from where you're living to your domicile. A lot of airlines (as far as I know) won't buy you a ticket to your domicile or a hotel room while you're there. Sure, it would be better to have home basing, but you don't, and this seems preferable to an airline that expects you to report for duty in your domicile completely on your own tab.

Originally Posted by A Squared

Thanks. So, why is this being described as something punitive the company is doing to the pilot group? I'm not a tax expert by any means, but this is more or less what I would expect would be required by the tax code if the company is housing you in domicile and providing you with airline travel from where you're living to your domicile. A lot of airlines (as far as I know) won't buy you a ticket to your domicile or a hotel room while you're there. Sure, it would be better to have home basing, but you don't, and this seems preferable to an airline that expects you to report for duty in your domicile completely on your own tab.

Originally Posted by CaptDave

I get it. It’s in the contract and that the company does it but my question is why do the Atlas pilots continue to show up for work of their income is being “imputed” to the point of poverty? At this point, you have to question the decision making of anyone that shows up to work under those rules because it just perpetuates managements ability to keep doing it.

Almost everyone is hiring....

Originally Posted by A Squared

Thanks. So, why is this being described as something punitive the company is doing to the pilot group? I'm not a tax expert by any means, but this is more or less what I would expect would be required by the tax code if the company is housing you in domicile and providing you with airline travel from where you're living to your domicile. A lot of airlines (as far as I know) won't buy you a ticket to your domicile or a hotel room while you're there. Sure, it would be better to have home basing, but you don't, and this seems preferable to an airline that expects you to report for duty in your domicile completely on your own tab.

Originally Posted by JackStraw

Because it’s selectively enforced, partner. If it’s required by the tax code then everyone should be getting imputed. Instead, some people will go months without it while others get hit consistently. Even stranger was how incidents of imputed income dramatically increased once the relationship between the pilot group and the company began to deteriorate.

Originally Posted by CaptDave

I applied at Atlas once. Then I read their contract on the imputed income. In 40yrs of life, I’ve never heard of an airline pulling something that shady.

Originally Posted by atpcliff

This is because: Aviation organizations have Bases, Gateway Basing, or Home basing. Everybody uses ONE of the above: Delta has Bases. NetJets has Gateway Basing (your Gateway is your base). Kalitta has Home Basing (your home is your base). Atlas, because of Cato, apparently, has Gateway Travel AND Bases. Atlas is THE ONLY organization that I have heard of that uses two or three of the above.

Because they have Gateway Travel, and Bases, then you are commuting between your Gateway, and your Base, if in fact that is what you do (often at Atlas, you don't go to your base to start and/or end your trip).

The union is trying to end this situation with the new contract, because it is not good.