Give Techs a Tax Break

When our sister magazine, Automotive Parts & Technology, decided to rekindle the fight for technicians to claim the cost of their tools as tax deductions, we just about pulled a hamstring jumping onto the bandwagon.

The need for a write-off for tools is not a new issue. But it’s just one more nagging disincentive for people to become (or remain) automotive or heavy-duty technicians at a time when the need for qualified technicians has never been more pressing.

According to Human Resources Development Canada, nearly 175,000 people worked as car or truck mechanics in 1996, up 3.2% from 10 years before. Not encouraging when employment in other occupations grew 13% over the same period.

The trucking industry can’t afford any more deterrents to this profession. Already, technicians invest years ascending the apprenticeship ladder, and thousands of after-tax dollars to fill their tool chests.

In an interview on page 38, Finance Minister Paul Martin is noncommital, if not pessimistic. He says tax fairness is at issue, and he’s concerned about the precedent such a ruling would set.

It’s fair to define which tools would be acceptable as write-offs, and how often claims could be made for the replacement of tools. But precedent? If a lumberjack can deduct the expense of a chainsaw, and a musician can write off his violin, and a bike-courier has the right to a tax break for the cost of granola bars and Gatorade needed as “fuel” for the job, a technician should be able to claim the cost of the torque wrench he uses to keep the wheels on.

There’s a card in this issue you can use to send a message to Ottawa. Through AP&T, Snap-on Tools, several industry associations, and now this magazine, more than 250,000 “Tool Tax Relief” cards have been distributed across Canada. Make photocopies and give them to your shop staff. At this office alone, we’ve fielded 40,000 replies. Add yours. Let Paul Martin know that tax fairness for technicians would be a small gesture that could have a tremendous impact on truck operators.

____

The gridlock at the Canada-U.S. border in December because of concerns over Year 2000 terrorist activities should be a reminder that the first session of the 106th U.S. Congress ended on Nov. 24, 1999, with Section 110 of the U.S. Illegal Immigration Act of 1996 still on the books.

Section 110 requires immigration inspectors to collect a record of departure for each foreigner leaving the U.S. and match it with an arrival record. Two years ago, the Immigration and Naturalization Service said Section 110 would not be enforced until March 2001, to give the agency more time to automate the 500 million or so immigration inspections the agency conducts each year.

The law is intended to crack down on Mexicans who overstay their visas. Applied to Canadian truckers, even a 30-second delay per truck would bring crossborder traffic to a standstill. Two bills were introduced last year that would have repealed Section 110: H.R. 1650 in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich., 202/225-3761), and S.745 in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich., 202/224-4822). Both bills failed to pass before the session ended. This session, they’ll be back in one form or another. Urge your U.S.-based customers, suppliers, and operations to support the repeal of Section 110.

I can live with delays caused by anti-terrorism spot-checks. But Section 110 is misguided law, and it’s gotta go.

____

Surcharges: Time Is Money

Last June, the U.S.-based Truckload Carriers Association (703/838-1950) released a study showing that dry van drivers spend an average of 33.5 hours a week waiting to load and unload-at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion US in lost productivity.

Waiting times are worse for refrigerated carriers. Ask Wendell Erb. Fed up with “unforeseen” unloading delays and freight-handling demands, the vice-president of Erb Transport (519/662-2710) in New Hamburg, Ont., imposed a 25% surcharge on LTL shipments to “problem” receivers.

The charge applies to every shipper and every consignee and is stripped off the bill when excessive waiting times and freight handling issues are resolved.

“We have customers who willingly pay the charge because they want our drivers to handle freight, or because they can’t meet their own schedule,” Erb says. “Fine. We’re prepared to do the extras, but we can’t afford to do things over and above the delivery of freight without compensation. All of our profits were idling away at the loading docks of some of the receivers.”

Erb says the 25% fee is here to stay, “but my goal is not to charge one extra cent. I want shippers off the surcharge list. We’re in the business of trucking, not warehousing in parking lots.”