@lorijordan wrote:
So, in my non-legal opinion, from a plain human to human standpoint, the shopper should get reimbursed.
I'm not disagreeing that there's an argument to be made as to whether or not the shopper should receive compensation. (I don't think so, based on the wording of the contract between MSC and shopper, but it depends on the contract.) But in this case, it's
not a reimbursement. It's payment for services (because the shopper did the work) and is taxable income. A reimbursement would be made to the person who incurred the expense.
Reimbursement literally and in practice means "back in the purse." Money can't be "back" in a purse unless it came out of that purse to begin with. Reimbursement is REpayment, not payment. If a person doesn't incur an expense, there can't be a reimbursement to THAT person. People are giving an interpretation to "reimbursement" that's in opposition to all standard business practice.
Mystery shopping doesn't change the meaning of the word "reimbursement."
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 04:11PM by BirdyC.