Real life Club Level dilemma. Take the tickets?

[PatsFanSince74]

I would ask your boss for special consideration (because the father doesn't bank with you, etc.), and if he/she says no, you can't accept the gift, then offer to take you and your kid (or you and your wife, whichever way will result in fewer tears )and two other's of the company's choosing to the game & see what they say.

I would not risk my job to go to a Pats game, even though I love them more than anything. I bet you if you accept the tickets and then try to hide it you will be sweating it out and won't enjoy yourself. What if this customer mentions to your co-worker that his dad gave you the tickets? Better to have it all on the up-and-up with your boss I say.

I hope you get to go and have a fabulous time!

As a guy who's been in a senior role in banks and Professional Service Firms for years, I can tell you that anyone senior enough to give a waiver from a policy like this would seriously question why he was even being asked before saying "No" and placing a question mark next to the name of the individual involved, as well as the manager who brought it to his/her attention.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

4 club seats is very expensive!

That's why he shouldn't be taking them.

 

[crew1954]

Sounds like MA.

If MA is short for Mexico, yes

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Your bank made it pretty clear then. Can't 'buy' them from a customer, can't accept them as a gift. Even though the actual guy with the tickets is the father of a customer, you still wouldn't have this opportunity if it wasn't for the son (your customer). Way too close to the ethical line.

I'd politely decline.

No. So far over the ethical line that it's not even close.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This is what I did. Oh trust me, I definitely went through every possible scenario in my head, and ya I admit I thought about just accepting them and keeping my mouth shut! (Another part of this story is that this customer is actually pretty well-to-do and only lives in Louisville part of the year. And he basically said to me "No one else has to know"; I think he realized he kind of put me in a quandry.)

But, in the end I came clean to my boss, who was actually very cool about it and said she'd forward it to HR.

The email came back the next day:

"Accepting the tickets is a violation of the compant's code of conduct.

Thank you for involving me."

So, we've come up with Plan B, which is not quite as exciting but allows me to keep a clear conscience, and my job:

Titans season opener against the Pats! Only a couple hours drive away and still some tickets left on StubHub. Wonder what the view's like from the nosebleeds

Just saw this. I would have advised you against even asking, but ultimately you did the right thing.

 

[crew1954]

Easy solution. Have the guy call me. I'll leave my iphone on all game promise

 

[PATSNUTme]

What's the big dilemma? Here is how we do it. You take the tickets. I open an account at your bank. In appreciation for my opening an account at your bank, you give me the tickets.

You get to continue to feed your family. I get to go to a game with my friends and family. You get credit for a new account. Where is the downside to this?

Ok, so you dont' get to go to the game but you can feel really good that I am enjoying it.

 

[goheels22002]

You say you work for a bank? Knock yourself out.

Make it your dream day. Take the tickets and charge your customers a $3 fee for using their ATM cards to open the door after closing hours.

Don't worry, we'll have no idea you picked us clean. We'll be too busy on hold with our TVs on mute trying to complain about the $35 late fee and the sudden increase to 31% interest on our credit cards because it took 32 days to process our last electronic bill payment.

Take the tickets. If the bank actually has a "Code of Conduct" - fat chance of that - your boss burned her copy as part of her promotion ceremony. And since you laid off the Human Resources staff because they are non-revenue generating, she doesn't have anyone to turn you in to, anyway.

 

[goheels22002]

One last thing. If you don't go and the Patriots lose, it's your fault.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I also work for a financial company and the rules are clear. I'd suggest you ask your ethics office (or whatever they call themselves) up front and accept their "no" answer.

 

[RayClay]

The basic problem is, these tickets were probably bought with a 50% tax deduction as entertainment expense. Anyone but a client using them would be wrong IMO (I'd do it, of course, I don't work in a bank).

Simply eliminate almost all tax breaks for entertaining, then the prices would come way down and instead of waiting for some corporation using a tax break for your tickets, you could walk up to the box office and buy them affordably.

This is actually true, historically. Ticket prices and availability didn't used to depend on corporations gobbling them up because of tax breaks.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The basic problem is, these tickets were probably bought with a 50% tax deduction as entertainment expense. Anyone but a client using them would be wrong IMO (I'd do it, of course, I don't work in a bank).

Simply eliminate almost all tax breaks for entertaining, then the prices would come way down and instead of waiting for some corporation using a tax break for your tickets, you could walk up to the box office and buy them affordably.

This is actually true, historically. Ticket prices and availability didn't used to depend on corporations gobbling them up because of tax breaks.

Just who ARE those really big guys with Jonathan Kraft at your door?
I'd love to see such entertainment expense deductions eliminated or maybe best, severely curtailed. Unfortunately many restaurants, resorts, etc. would probably go out of business or at the least many service industry folks would lose their jobs. Phase down the deductions.

 

[Ring 6]

The basic problem is, these tickets were probably bought with a 50% tax deduction as entertainment expense. Anyone but a client using them would be wrong IMO (I'd do it, of course, I don't work in a bank).

Simply eliminate almost all tax breaks for entertaining, then the prices would come way down and instead of waiting for some corporation using a tax break for your tickets, you could walk up to the box office and buy them affordably.

This is actually true, historically. Ticket prices and availability didn't used to depend on corporations gobbling them up because of tax breaks.

Lets at least try for accuracy.
There is not an 'entertainment tax deduction of 50%'. Entertainment expense is considered an expense of doing business. Spending in this area is part of marketing and goodwill. It is used to help the coprporation generate more revenue, so that they can employee people. When they earn a profit, that profit goes to shareholders, the majority of which are every day people since over 50% of the stock in American corporations is owned by 401ks and pension plans.
The '50% tax deduction' as you put it is really just recognizing entertainment as a legitimate expense, just like office supplies, travel and raw materials, and the result is that the corporation does not have to pay toax on money they spend in order to generate their profit.
Are you saying that corporatins should be taxed on revenue, rather than profits? That will cost you and I a lot more than the intended benefit you have in mind, including a lot of people losing their jobs.

 

[Deus Irae]

As a guy who's been in a senior role in banks and Professional Service Firms for years, I can tell you that anyone senior enough to give a waiver from a policy like this would seriously question why he was even being asked before saying "No" and placing a question mark next to the name of the individual involved, as well as the manager who brought it to his/her attention.

Given that the banking higher ups take corporate perks, I'd love a list of the banks you worked with that would do that. I need to cross them off my list of potential business partners.

 

[RayClay]

Lets at least try for accuracy.
There is not an 'entertainment tax deduction of 50%'. Entertainment expense is considered an expense of doing business. Spending in this area is part of marketing and goodwill. It is used to help the coprporation generate more revenue, so that they can employee people. When they earn a profit, that profit goes to shareholders, the majority of which are every day people since over 50% of the stock in American corporations is owned by 401ks and pension plans.
The '50% tax deduction' as you put it is really just recognizing entertainment as a legitimate expense, just like office supplies, travel and raw materials, and the result is that the corporation does not have to pay toax on money they spend in order to generate their profit.
Are you saying that corporatins should be taxed on revenue, rather than profits? That will cost you and I a lot more than the intended benefit you have in mind, including a lot of people losing their jobs.

I propose, as far as taxes go, that we consider entertainment to be entertainment, once again. If a company decides that a sporting event is an attractive way to get or continue business, or impress clients, they pay for it and budget it.

then we can keep these deductions to a minimum, lower everyone's tax rates and business expenditures are built around business, not around which activities will lower your tax burden.

Operating corporate business in such a way that your accountants and lawyers can avoid paying taxes is the single biggest problem we have today IMO.

Some large corporations pay no taxes despite us having a high corporate tax rate.

If having exorbitantly expensive football tickets so available that people are handing them out to anyone they meet on the street doesn't indicate a problem, I don't know what does. Do people think these are really "free"? Someone pays the taxes that companies don't pay.

 

[RayClay]

Just who ARE those really big guys with Jonathan Kraft at your door?
I'd love to see such entertainment expense deductions eliminated or maybe best, severely curtailed. Unfortunately many restaurants, resorts, etc. would probably go out of business or at the least many service industry folks would lose their jobs. Phase down the deductions.

I understand that restaurants and hotels would take a hit, but why should the average person subsidize executives dining on French cuisine and fine wines to the tune of a few hundred dollars a meal? One can conduct business at a Holiday Inn or mid level restaurant, without drinks. If a company wants to upgrade over that, they can pay for drinks, fancier meals (over the minimum tax deductible portion) or entertainment of any kind they would like (because they pay for 100% of it).

 

[Zeus]

As a guy who's been in a senior role in banks and Professional Service Firms for years, I can tell you that anyone senior enough to give a waiver from a policy like this would seriously question why he was even being asked before saying "No" and placing a question mark next to the name of the individual involved, as well as the manager who brought it to his/her attention.

This has been my experience as well. Violation of the code of conduct is clear grounds for dismissal where I work. Whatever the rules are, the employee has an obligation to follow them. If he or she finds such rules to be too restrictive, their only option is too seek employment elsewhere. That may sound harsh, bit it is indeed the way the real world works.

It sounds like this business is trying to do the right thing. My firm is committed to honest and ethical behavior and I have tried to run my part of the business accordingly. Sadly, there are others who all too often put their own interests first. However, the citing the lack of integrity or misdeeds of others is a rationalization (not a justification) for failing to observe the standards of behavior set by the business and, more importantly, your own conscience.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Given that the banking higher ups take corporate perks, I'd love a list of the banks you worked with that would do that. I need to cross them off my list of potential business partners.

Give me a couple of specific examples of bank "higher ups" and the perks they have taken from clients, other than related to their membership on the Board of another bank. That kind of stuff is kind of rare in the post Dodd-Frank era.

 

[Deus Irae]

Give me a couple of specific examples of bank "higher ups" and the perks they have taken from clients, other than related to their membership on the Board of another bank. That kind of stuff is kind of rare in the post Dodd-Frank era.

I'm not going to get into specifics, because you could neither verify nor refute them, so it'd be a waste of time. However, my issue wasn't about the policy. My issue was about your claim regarding the

placing a question mark next to the name of the individual involved, as well as the manager who brought it to his/her attention.

That's stupidity on a scale that's dangerous.

 

[patfanken]

The one thing I find ironic about this entire exercise, is that the Bank is well within its rights to restrict an employee for taking these tickets as a gift because it might imply the possibility of getting a business favor in return; yet at the same time this same Bank might own many tickets and/or boxes, that they use to curry favor from potential business clients of their own.

And Ray is right that the "entertainment deduction" has been badly abused, and if Congress was really serious about closing the deficit gap, they'd look to savings like this as opposed to cutting the foot stamp budgets and student loans.