OP, it was a great topic to bring to the forum, and I was hoping if you wrote back it would be to say that the MSC had returned the gift that they wrongly intercepted. Very sorry it didn't work out that way.

All the Monday morning quarterbacking is common here--you'll see it on other current threads, too. It's helpful for all of us because we benefit from the collective creativeness of the group. Within that mix are opinions that we don't agree with and they tend to stand out more to us. Some are flat out mean, and that's inexcusable. Fortunately, it's rare. Don't stop posting because of that. For the most part, we're all strangers here and only know each other by screennames. It takes several months, but you'll get to know everyone. Harsh replies are uncommon. Unfortunately, this topic hit shoppers at an emotional level, hence the heated responses. This post was lively to say the least so i hope you'll continue to post.

I found this thread to be an interesting read and thought I would throw in my 2-cents worth.

Gifts are rarely without cost. If I pay for the breakfast of the guy behind me at the drive through, the current mythology is that he will 'pay it forward' with an act of kindness to some other stranger. If I open the door for you, there is the expectation that you will say 'thank you'. If I let you merge into my lane of traffic after you have gotten yourself in a pickle, I expect you to wave or nod or smile and hopefully you will respond to other drivers with kindness and consideration. When it comes to gifts of significant financial value, the expectations can also be significant. Whether the acquaintance was repaying a social debt or creating one I cannot tell and it doesn't really matter. The gift created a debt or satisfied one.

To expect an MSP or client to be understanding and pay the shopper is unrealistic. Rarely will you get one cent more than you personally paid, and more frequently you will be underpaid because the tip you left exceeded the 15% or 18% 'guideline'. So the shopper in this case has 'paid' twice. Once by submitting a report on the meal and once with the social debt that has been created or settled. It is an unfortunate situation and one of those awful 'learning experiences'.

Under such a situation I would have emailed my scheduler and/or left a voice mail at the MSP that my shop had been compromised by the unexpected appearance of an acquaintance at the site. I would indicate that I was unable to appropriately complete the shop so needed to cancel. If they wanted proof I had been there, I would show the date time stamp on the bill as well as the location, but folded to NOT show purchases, table number, server, ticket number or any other information that might allow fictitious creation of a report. I would sacrifice the fee because $12 is not enough pay for an in depth report.

If the itemize receipt was obtained, it would have been just as easy to get a copy of the bill. I've called restaurants the next day sometimes weeks after and asked for receipts.

I personally don't think the MSC owes the OP the reimbursement because they neither the OP or their guest had any out of pocket expenses. Essentially, the OP would be getting $75 payment. If anything, the OP should ask to have their friend card reversed for the charges.

If it were me and I went through the fuss of getting the itemize receipt, I would have simply stated, "May I have a copy of the total bill as well." If you felt the need to further explain yourself, I would have simply stated, "I need a copy of the total bill so I can make sure my friend is properly thanked."

No one would have said no.

There was no logic involved. I would have bet a dollar to a donut that the MSC would not reimburse the shopper for any amount not paid by the shopper. Gift, comp, whatever reason. Additionally, in this instance, how could the shopper have completed the section of the report on check presentation, pick up and return?

Years ago, I was paid fee and reimbursement for a hospitality shop that went wrong, no fault of my own. I completed the report. Then, emailed the scheduler and explained. Bare paid me, even though my report could not be used. When there are extenuating circumstances, exceptions can be made, if warranted.

I think it is unfair because even though you did not pay for it, your friend paid and it should be refunded to the friend at least. It is no different than if your sister loaned you the money to cover the bill initially so you could do the shop. Where the source of the funds come from does not matter as long as the establishment did not givenit to you themselves which would mean it coat zero.In this case there was a cost which should be.refunded. Even ifnyour friend does not want the money back, it was meant as a gift and there was nothing in the contract that gift money changes the arrangement. Same as if you got birthday money to spend. If you don't care to ever work for them again then consider suing them in small claims court. All of this is in my humble and flawed person's opinion. ( Well maybe not too humble). ;-p

@slapp wrote:

I think it is unfair because even though you did not pay for it, your friend paid and it should be refunded to the friend at least. It is no different than if your sister loaned you the money to cover the bill initially so you could do the shop. Where the source of the funds come from does not matter as long as the establishment did not givenit to you themselves which would mean it coat zero.In this case there was a cost which should be.refunded. Even ifnyour friend does not want the money back, it was meant as a gift and there was nothing in the contract that gift money changes the arrangement. Same as if you got birthday money to spend. If you don't care to ever work for them again then consider suing them in small claims court. All of this is in my humble and flawed person's opinion. ( Well maybe not too humble). ;-p

Ridiculous! The meal was paid for, and you provided the receipt. It does not matter who paid for it. The company is trying to turn your good fortune into theirs. I would write a letter to the restaurant corporate offices. Maybe the corporation should get the same advantage of a free shop that the MSC is trying to take advantage of in this case.

I know what MSC this is and who is the client as I have seen this same shop many times. I think it is is the best interest of a the Mystery Shopping Company to come clean with their client because word is going to get around one way or another.

If you had received a $75 gift card from the husband's friend to use at the restaurant, you would have still been reimbursed by the MSC. So. What is the difference? It is as if they are penalizing you for being honest. You might want to bring those points up with them.

I have dining shops where one or both orders have been covered by the manager because there was a mistake made on the order. None had to be returned, but ethically, because I was writing a report, I felt obligated to tell the waitperson about the error. As for the situation where "someone else" paid the tab . . . so what? It was paid. If we are to act as "real" diners having a "real" dining experience like everyone else, then this is a not uncommon situation. If there was timing involved re:check and payment, I would have answered as with "0" and provided a complete explanation in the narrative. Yes, I most certainly would have expected reimbursement unless it is stated very clearly in the instructions only the shopper can pick up the tab. That meal would have cost me $75 if they didn't live up to our contract. Essentially, instead of two "free" meals, I received only one. I would tell the MSC to pay as promised. If they refused, I would write a letter (certified) objecting. If they still refused to pay, they would get another letter requesting my removal from their shopper list (I don't work for unethical and unreliable companies) and I would make sure the Mystery Shopper community know of their behavior regarding a contract.

As shoppers we have a learning curve and we do make mistakes. We accept there are consequences for those times. We shouldn't have to accept that MSC's can make up rules as they go so they get out of paying us for work when it meets the requirements that were listed when we accepted a job. That is unfair and unacceptable.

@Mert wrote:

There was no logic involved. I would have bet a dollar to a donut that the MSC would not reimburse the shopper for any amount not paid by the shopper. Gift, comp, whatever reason. Additionally, in this instance, how could the shopper have completed the section of the report on check presentation, pick up and return?

Years ago, I was paid fee and reimbursement for a hospitality shop that went wrong, no fault of my own. I completed the report. Then, emailed the scheduler and explained. Bare paid me, even though my report could not be used. When there are extenuating circumstances, exceptions can be made, if warranted.

The OP didn't comment on whether or not timings for check presentation were a required part of the shop. OP was paid the shop fee, so that indicates that the report was complete and was sent to client.

Yes, there are extenuating circumstances as you mentioned. Bare is a very generous company and paid you even though they could not use your report. OP's report was used. It's interesting that you feel the exception made for your effort was warranted, but OP isn't deserving and never should have harbored such expectation. The difference is not in the circumstances, it's in the understanding and generosity of the MSC.

ChrisCooper, I was completely surprised by what Bare did. I certainly did not ask for, or expect reimbursement. It wasn't that I believed it was warranted, it was that the MSC did.

I have never had this happen, but remember that if you did get paid a reimbursement for money you did not actually spend, it then becomes a taxable income. In consideration of this, I agree that the company did not pay for the dinner. They would have to have a method of recording reimbursements that were transferred into taxable income. Kind of technical, but actually the company can't pay a reimbursement if it in fact would be considered income.

AFAIK, this is wrong. Companies do it all the time. It is our responsibility to report our payments correctly.

"Kind of technical, but actually the company can't pay a reimbursement if it in fact would be considered income."

Thanks to the OP for bringing this up as the situation would never have occurred to me and now I know how I would handle it if it were to happen to me.

My understanding is that generally the MSC pays a fee ($12 in this case) to the shopper and the client comps the meal by reimbursing the shopper through the MSC upon receiving the report. From the client's perspective, they are giving the meal to the shopper not as payment, but because the shopper can't evaluate the restaurant if they don't order and sample the food. How the shopper feels about getting a free meal is irrelevant to the client. who might even be surprised to learn that shoppers do this job for less money per hour than their employees make. From the MSC's perspective, it would be unethical for them to request reimbursement from the client for a meal that the shopper didn't pay for.

But!
In many cases, an MSC offers reimbursement only.
This leads some shoppers to consider the reimbursement (either alone or in addition to the fee) as payment for our services. If it's not payment, then we would be working for free for those companies. My guess is that those who are arguing that the OP isn't owed anything because they didn't pay for their own meal, probably also don't accept reimbursement-only shops.

A: Where does it say in the rules that the bill has to be paid out of the shoppers pocket?
B. It is NOT "unjust enrichment" on the shoppers part. The shopper did their part and the shopper company is responsible to do their part.
C, Why should the MSC get a free ride because this person has friends, or good business associates.
D. If I takes friend out to dinner, and he insists on paying the bill, whether in whole or in part, am I going to deduct that from my payment? Yeah, that's going to happen. If it's my moral obligation to repay somebody, it the person who did paid it, NOT the shopper company. The shopper company if getting what they paid for, the shopper is getting what he's 'earned' (either by being a nice guy, in hopes that the payer [the friend] is going to get more of what ever he got in the first place, or whatever./

Did the OP post back that she had been paid the $12 fee? Last I knew, she was still waiting to be paid.

I've posed this situation to three of my attorney friends. I'm waiting for a response from the third, and will post them when I have all three. Although it's important to remember that without seeing the shopper/MSC contract and the specific shop guidelines and survey, they can only give their best interpretation, not necessarily a definitive answer....

#klucretia and #LisaStl, I had an issue with an MSC regarding how companies report fees and reimbursements. For a year or so, I did a shop with a fee and a set reimbursement. If the money I spent on the requirement was less than the stated reim, I still got paid the set amount. Until one day I didn't. The MSC paid the fee and only what I actually spent. As it was contrary to past payments, as well as stated terms, I inquired. I received this reply:

""While I understand previous shop may have been reimbursed at the full $xx.xx regardless of what you spent, this was our error. I apologize for this error. We cannot reimburse you for more than you actually spent due to IRS regulations. At that point, it is no longer a reimbursement, but actual income on your part, and the rules completely change."

Yes, the OP posted that she had been paid the $12 and would not pursue reimbursement. She also posted she would not be posting again.

@BirdyC wrote:

Did the OP post back that she had been paid the $12 fee? Last I knew, she was still waiting to be paid.

@Mert wrote:

Yes, the OP posted that she had been paid the $12 and would not pursue reimbursement. She also posted she would not be posting again.

Thanks, Mert! I haven't been keeping up with this thread, and there are a lot of posts!

Mert, then how is it some companies pay a flat fee with a required purchase or include reimbursements when reporting our 1099 income? In the end it is our responsibility to report income and deduct expenses.

Regardless, IMO it does not apply to this situation. As far as the MSC is concerned they are reimbursing her for the required purchase. She could then reimburse the payee or consider it a gift from the payee. As bgriffin stated, the amount of the gift is not required to be reported.

Lisa, I am merely a shopper responsible for my own tax situations. Obviously though, MSCs must track taxable income that would generate a 1099. Both sides of the fence have obligations to the revenuers.

But this was not a taxable situation. This was a ~$75 gift given by a friend to a friend. That is not taxable. The IRS doesn't tax personal gifts under $10,000 per year.

Actually, the gift was not given directly to the friend. It was given directly to the client, which muddied the waters.

My point was more along the lines of questioning the MSC's "excuse" about IRS regulations. Often they lay blame on the IRS for things they don't understand or feel like tracking themselves.

A gift does not have to be given directly.
If someone gives you a gift of paying off your vehicle for you, and they send it to the bank instead of you, does that mean they no longer gave you a gift?
If someone going through a toll booth decides to give a gift to the 5 people behind them by paying their toll, do they have to get out of their vehicle and give the money to each person or can they just pay the toll booth attendant. If they do does that make it no longer a gift?

I would emphatically state that it depends on the taxpayer and the revenuer.

That doesn't even make sense as a statement.
What on earth do taxpayers and revenuers have to do with paying someone's toll?

Not going there. This is not the venue.

I believe Mert was replying to Lisa's post and yours squeezed in there when he was hitting "reply". Just guessing