In my email, I included links to 5 or 6 threads complaining about PU service or parts...and those go back only 6 or 7 months or so.

As I was writing the email and looking for those examples, it really hit me how bad they are. I think of the great vendors I do business with, like Aaron from OutMotoring and Richard from ShowCarDetailing and Heather and Nick from Detailers Paradise and there are tons more...it makes me sad that PU taints the waters, and that they do so in such spectacular and belligerent fashion.

Like really, maybe I'm just PMSing, but it really does make me sad, because we have so many AWESOME vendors. And then these dip$#^%s.

 

You're 100% right on this subject. As an earlier poster argued (I think in trying to convince Mark why something should have been done about PU long ago), if PU was your first experience with a NAM vendor, you probably wouldn't consider dealing with any of the others; at the very least you would be very wary. Ergo, allowing PU to pee in the pool does contaminate it for everyone.

 

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I do think the intent of the promotion was to do something good. So I've really hesitated in posting anything from my pm's with PU. Also, I know that partial quotes can be taken out of context, but I feel these will further clarify the position PU has taken. So here's a few tidbits (in bold):

"Thanks for your info, we have been informed that we submit the check on behalf of all who purchased, along with their names and addresses, date of purchase and amount, and the deduction is 100% legal ."

This is one way to get a donation receipt that looks perfectly fine and has no mention of goods or services received. However, PU is misleading the charity because the money is actually coming out of PU's revenue, not from the customers.

"We have been assured by Snell& Wilmer, our usa agents that this is ok."

Snell & Wilmer is a law firm based primarily in the southwest US.

"I think part of the confusion here is you need to know we are a British Company which operates a profit center in the usa under a franchise."

"There are seven companies under The Palo Uber London Company umbrella, of which the mini division is only one."

Based on their "consulting" a US law firm, it would seem that the charity is located in the US and the charitable contribution is being offered to US taxpayers. The corporate structure of PU, however, does not result in the Internal Revenue Code being applied differently to their customers.

 

The intent of any promotion is to sell stuff - not so pure, but pretty simple. I think you gave them too much benefit of the doubt by holding off joining in until now, but welcome (and don't worry, you're not alone, as I did the same - gave them too much benefit of the doubt - for months through back and forth wrangling over their crappy rusty tuner lugs). It seems though that you've concluded that even though they may have had some charitable intent and to "honor" Bryce's memory, but all that went right out the window with how they approached the ad copy. No question that it was intended to deceive for the maximum sympathy and sales effect.

 

Jay:

Please help me out here, as the quotes you cited in your post above are not familiar to me, at least I do not recall them being from the PU ad that was the subject of the thread (although the first quote you used - and which I did not repeat above - was from that ad, which seems to have since been taken down). The quotes I repeated above sound like they were offered as an explanation for their faux pas. Were these from an explanation PU offered that I missed? Is it still posted someplace? BTW, are you familiar with the law firm Snell & Wilmer? Are they reputable? Would they knowingly participate in supporting this bit of trickery?

 

I'd just like to point out that, 6 pages into this thread, there has been not one post from PU making any attempt to explain or clarify the situation. Were it any other vendor, I'd be extremely surprised.

 

anyone tried communicating this smell to any of these business - each listed on the PU web site?

Mini Madness
www.MiniMadness.com
(888) 783-6294

Darkside Motoring
www.DarksideMotoring.com
(818) 349-6221

Nick Alexander Mini
Parts Department
www.NickAlexanderMini.com
(800) 800-6425

Mini Mania U.S.A
www.MiniMania.com
(800) 94-mania

Mini Mania U.K.
www.MiniManiaUK.co.uk
(01) 525-841-733

for example, Mini Mania has a fair bit of "shelf space" dedicated to this supplier - as in

http://new.minimania.com/web/SUBTYPE..._Inventory.cfm

 

This is very true - well said.

 

Personally, I have no problem with another vendor chosing to market PU stuff, as long as they are able to keep the items stocked, are honest about the product, and stand by their sale of it. If I decide to buy a PU item from a 3rd party and they are willing to take it back, if it is defective, great. I wouldn't buy a PU item, given what I know about PU, but I don't have a problem if the vendor choses to sell its stuff. I don't like Turtle Wax, but I got no problem buying oil from Advantage, which sells Turtle.

 

Blackie -

All quotes are from pm's I received from PU. As I stated early on in this thread, as a CPA I immediately knew that the ad was incorrect. Rather than start another thread bashing PU, I sent them a pm to commend their charitable spirit and explain why the ad was incorrect. We exchanged pm's 3x, but they held their position and believe they are in the right as indicated by quotes. I would say that the pm's were quite civil on both sides, although I don't doubt they were a bit annoyed by my "persistence" in the matter.

I am not familiar with Snell & Wilmer, although they seem to be a good size firm with several offices and 400+ attorneys. This is what made me doubt that they actually consulted them. I work for a law firm and I see what the billing rates are.

 

I don't understand their insistence that they are really based in London when we all know they really aren't. Or that the MINI stuff is just one small portion of their business, which we also know is not true.

I mean maybe THEY are uninformed enough to not know how to search for these things, but there are several of us here who are not. Their mailing address is a Mailboxes, Etc type place. No matter HOW hard you look, you do not find any sort of address associated with them (other than resellers) ANYWHERE in all of Europe. The Palo Uber "art" address is the same Mailboxes Etc address. Anyone with Google and half a brain can figure it out.

It's almost more infuriating than the actual scam-artist behavior...is how stupid they must think we all are.

 

Incorrect.
A deduction is only a deduction of the amount greater than the value of goods received. Even if the deduction was being made 'on behalf of all who purchased', it's still not deductible for the purchaser. If it includes 'date of purchase', that states that something was purchased, yes?
Even if this scenario WAS possible, then you're defrauding the gov't (not misleading the charity) as purchases of items of value are not deductible.
You get a donation receipt from a charity, not from a company you purchased something from that says that they are going to give the money to a charity. It's as simple as that.

If you give me $20, and I give you sheet of paper promising that I will donate that $20 to charity, that is NOT a valid tax deductible receipt.

 

Eric -- I want my $20 back!!

By the way, Wagner, I think you answer your own question when you write:

 

http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/palo-uber-london

Matt

 

Eric, either you completely misunderstood my point or you're commenting on my quote from PU in bold text. As you stated, the contribution receipt is from the charity, not PU. If PU supplied a name, date and amount to the charity, there is a good chance that the charity will issue an acknowledgement to PU's customer without any mention of goods or services received. And I highly doubt the IRS would give such an acknowledgement a second glance, so it would be "100% legal" in PU's eyes. It's not ethical, but it's an easy way to sidestep the tax law.

 

Which makes it okay on paper (as in, you'd avoid penalty in an audit because no auditor would be the wiser)...but that still doesn't make it correct. Just because the receipt doesn't acknowledge that the customer received goods in exchange for the donation doesn't make it legal. It just means the bookkeeping was incorrect, basically.

 

I wonder what Snell & Wilmer would say if asked about their tax advice as represented by their "client" PU.
My guess is it would be: "what?" or "Palo who?"

 

Like I have said, these folks cannot defend the indefensible. One on one they will try to double talk the customer and say almost anything to preserve even a little goodwill (or at least not have the screwed customer aggressively bad mouth them).

If PU cannot talk their way out of a problem, they will resort to attempted bribes with offers of small free items (their antennae is a popular device for this sort of freebie) or reduced price stuff. This tactic just sucks anyone in who goes along with it; you're just acquiring more crappy PU stuff and a reduced price from an inflated price is still too much for their crap.

When all else fails (if they cannot double talk you into submission or bribe you with their offers) they will turn to their ace-in-the-hole, which is to make an outrageous excuse. The bad batch excuse is a favorite.

In public forums like these, they seem to be mostly cowards; maybe with good reason. How many would jump all over whatever BS they attempted here?

 

PU will be civil, even if haughty, to a point. Things devolve quickly though when you are a customer seeking a refund, rather than just more PU replacement crap.

Yes, one thing they do not like is a pest. Your persistence probably made you one of those in their view.

I know I was a pest to them. I refused to give up and held them to making good.

Too many people here seem to just walk away after an attempt or two at getting an "as advertised" replacement part (difficult to do when their stuff seems mostly to be crap) and being rebuffed. You cannot allow these creeps to get away with that sort of thing, as it emboldens them to continue and makes it economically feasible for them to do so.

My success eventually came via using my credit card company's dispute department. Even here PU tries to make you throw in the towel. It seems many people just give up on this process too, just out of sheer frustration (especially when I am sure PU disputes their dispute, as they did mine).

One must be prepared to go back and forth with this vendor via the credit card issuer's dispute channel to actually get anywhere, as this vendor uses the same system to try to discredit your dispute so that they get paid and hopefully, at worst, they have your credit card company eat the disputed amount under the guise of a "customer satisfaction" adjustment.

 

If they do represent Uber, I wonder if they have collection problems with them. My guess though is you're probably correct about the, "Palo who"?

 

I'd like to see what sort of charitable donation tax receipt PU actually sent to any of their customers who fell for this ploy. The speculation that an auditor wouldn't know any better is just only that - speculation, until you know what the actual receipt says I wouldn't feel confident at all about it.

Forget folks like Jay or me ever getting away with it, even if we were dumb enough to try. As CPAs we should know better, even if Joe or Jane Average Taxpayer might plead ignorance (which is technically not an excuse for violating any law, including tax law) and avoid an additional penalty on top of the extra tax, if they sounded convincing and the auditor was themself being charitable. Then again, the incidence of being audited are so small that the odds are all in the favor of the blissfully ignorant.

 

Yet in the first post, it says it says nothing about the charity forwarding a receipt to you (and that doesn't really make sense, at least I've never heard of it.) Shipping costs are clearly not tax deductible, and unless PU is contributing all proceeds PLUS shipping costs to the charity, that doesn't jive either.

You can believe what you want, but it just doesn't add up.

 

I think you guys are really on the exact same page. You both know what Uber did was wrong and was just a big steaming pile of BS (and of course they wrote it in a confusing way, so they would have some shred of deniability). Yet, you seem to be missing each other's points here even though they are really the same ones.

Speaking of saying things in a confusing way, INTENTIONALLY, have you seen their latest ad copy? You have some new personality claiming to be quoted in the ad. His name is Deiter, who seems to be the lead PU German designer and engineer (OK, I'll pause and wait till you stop laughing). In the copy he says to please excuse his imperfect English. Will these scoundrels stop at nothing to claw at credible sounding background stories?

 

<tongue in cheek>
Does he dress all in black, work in a nightclub and have a pet monkey?
Now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!
"Touch my monkey! Touch him! Love him! Liebe mine monkey!"
</tongue in cheek>

 

When I read that ad copy and "Deiter here", I burst out laughing, as the Mike Myers SNL skit immediately came to mind. The funny thing that I read someplace (and is covered in this Wikipedia link) is that Myers based Deiter on a guy he knew in college. Now he is a design engineer for Uber. If you read the whole link, you'll see a movie was in the works and was scrapped, maybe one day to be revived. If and when, what better company for for a disaffected German youth to go work for than a company with the name Uber in it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprocke...day_Night_Live)