T4A moratorium officially lifted, CRA reports

[Jim L]

How ironic, to put it mildly, that the largest purchasers of transportation services are not obligated to comply with this requirement at all.. The large, multi national shippers, especially the ones who are primarily price driven, spend far more every year on transportation than most brokers. As a result, they are far more likely to be the ones enabling some carriers to employ the Driver Inc model.

The large, multi-national shippers, primarily use a freight broker and do not want to get into the nitty gritty of finding carriers that fit their needs. If they do, they have a large trucking company (TForce, DayNRoss, etc) to fit a large portion of their loads and let the broker handle the rest. They are excluded because the multi-national widget maker revenue is not based on trucking related income where the broker is.
Although DRIVER INC is the primary problem that the T4A's were supposed to solve, they are also looking for the 'suddenly gone missing' double brokers (I'm thinking OTAL) where someone poses as a carrier but then brokers out the load. They have to follow the money someplace.

This is entirely a carrier specific problem, encouraged and supported by a number of companies, that should be addressed by carriers.

That is where you are incorrect. Brokers (not all, but a lot of them) also take the blame on this by taking the cheapest of the cheap guys, who call in on their loads, who have their backs against the wall, with a guy sitting someplace, and very little options. Driver Inc, insurance fraud, noncompliance in TFWP/LMIA, the existence of TFWP/LMIA, rogue driver schools, and all the other negative parts of our industry that have bubbled up, would not be a problem if everyone down the stream was comfortably profitable.

Including freight brokers in this widely cast net, is a waste of government time and money,

Don't worry, this government is extremely efficient in wasting government time and money. The reality is that if there was more enforcement from CRA all across the board they could have nipped a lot of these problems a long time ago or at least keep them at bay. As far as I know, CRA employees are still "working" from home and that cannot be efficient or effective at all.

 

[loaders]

The large, multi-national shippers, primarily use a freight broker and do not want to get into the nitty gritty of finding carriers that fit their needs. If they do, they have a large trucking company (TForce, DayNRoss, etc) to fit a large portion of their loads and let the broker handle the rest. They are excluded because the multi-national widget maker revenue is not based on trucking related income where the broker is.
Although DRIVER INC is the primary problem that the T4A's were supposed to solve, they are also looking for the 'suddenly gone missing' double brokers (I'm thinking OTAL) where someone poses as a carrier but then brokers out the load. They have to follow the money someplace.



That is where you are incorrect. Brokers (not all, but a lot of them) also take the blame on this by taking the cheapest of the cheap guys, who call in on their loads, who have their backs against the wall, with a guy sitting someplace, and very little options. Driver Inc, insurance fraud, noncompliance in TFWP/LMIA, the existence of TFWP/LMIA, rogue driver schools, and all the other negative parts of our industry that have bubbled up, would not be a problem if everyone down the stream was comfortably profitable.


Don't worry, this government is extremely efficient in wasting government time and money. The reality is that if there was more enforcement from CRA all across the board they could have nipped a lot of these problems a long time ago or at least keep them at bay. As far as I know, CRA employees are still "working" from home and that cannot be efficient or effective at all.

I have to disagree Jim L. From personal experience, trying to secure freight from the large “widget makers” , I have seen them select primarily asset based carriers over freight brokers to move their freight time and time again. Whether or not those carriers then decide to sell that freight is highly possible. We have have lost countless freight bids to carriers who have under quoted us. Regardless if a broker decides to use a cheap guy or not, does not mean that they are active participants in the Driver Inc scheme. Offering the lowest price does not automatically equate to using that particular employment model. That responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of trucking executives/owners who made the conscious decision to employ drivers as independent suppliers as opposed to actual employees. As a freight broker, it is not my responsibility to ensure that the carriers we select treat their employees properly, provide them with adequate benefits, or throw a Christmas party for them, although I hope they do! Those decisions, just like what truck manufacturer they buy or what fuel supplier they procure their diesel from is entirely theirs. This burden being imposed on freight brokers as opposed to all the other large transportation users, will do nothing to reduce insurance fraud, double brokering, phony driving schools. Those are separate battles for another day. If you want to eliminate Driver Inc from our industry, the answer is quite simple, compel the people who are directly benefiting from this scheme to stop using it. If issuing T4As will help, then it should be the companies hiring these pseudo suppliers preparing them, not me.

 

[martinwizz]

That is not what the CRA website says.

And besides, it is specifically targeting brokers in an example they provide.

 

[Rosalinda]

Does anyone know about the Factoring companies? How do we go about the carriers that use them?

 

[Fr8Guru]

I have to disagree Jim L. From personal experience, trying to secure freight from the large “widget makers” , I have seen them select primarily asset based carriers over freight brokers to move their freight time and time again. Whether or not those carriers then decide to sell that freight is highly possible. We have have lost countless freight bids to carriers who have under quoted us. Regardless if a broker decides to use a cheap guy or not, does not mean that they are active participants in the Driver Inc scheme. Offering the lowest price does not automatically equate to using that particular employment model. That responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of trucking executives/owners who made the conscious decision to employ drivers as independent suppliers as opposed to actual employees. As a freight broker, it is not my responsibility to ensure that the carriers we select treat their employees properly, provide them with adequate benefits, or throw a Christmas party for them, although I hope they do! Those decisions, just like what truck manufacturer they buy or what fuel supplier they procure their diesel from is entirely theirs. This burden being imposed on freight brokers as opposed to all the other large transportation users, will do nothing to reduce insurance fraud, double brokering, phony driving schools. Those are separate battles for another day. If you want to eliminate Driver Inc from our industry, the answer is quite simple, compel the people who are directly benefiting from this scheme to stop using it. If issuing T4As will help, then it should be the companies hiring these pseudo suppliers preparing them, not me.

There is an interview with a top procurement guy from Walmart USA I saw on Linkedin last year.

I tried to find it but wasn't able.

Essentially though, he explains how he sets up his routing guide, asset vs brokerage etc. Walmart's mindset is how can we have the most efficient routing guide with the least amount of vendors. He'd rather give 1 broker 100 lanes then give 2 lanes to 50 different asset carriers.

Same goes for assets, the only wanna deal with large players because small assets are highly inefficient usually, do not give them sufficient capacity and have no ability to solve an issue when a driver calls in etc.

From my convos with Fortune 500 shippers, they have the same mindset, they understand brokers are necessary, but they want a guy who can handle 50-100 loads a day. They are not interested in you handling 10 loads perfectly.

Also when it comes to broker liability, I tend to agree with your general sentiment that you are hiring someone to move the load from point a to b. If they do that safely and compliant, the rest is not your issue. But the law makers are taking the other side... and it's gonna get real messy quick if they continue down this path.

 

[loaders]

I agree. There are many shippers who use a combined system of brokers and asset based carriers. However, once again, how can a freight broker, and more importantly, why should a freight broker have any influence at all on how a carrier compensates his employees? Paid by the mile, paid a percentage of the load revenue, actual employee, properly registered owner/operator, sorry, that’s just not my business any more than being concerned if you operate Freightliner Cascadias, or some less expensive model. Your business….your choice. If you choose to employ a Driver Inc employment model, the government should be looking up your rear end….not mine. Who knows, maybe none of the carriers we partner with use Driver Inc, but a large food processing company spending 100s of thousands in annual transportation does. How in heavens name will that help to eliminate the problem? This program should have been limited to actual carriers, at least to start with. The volume of T4As would be less and the success rate at identifying the scofflaws would be considerably higher. I guess CRA doesn’t understand the most important rule of fishing. Cast your line into a small pond with lots of fish, not a huge pond. You will catch significantly more fish.

 

[BPOVFB]

Trucking has the same inputs and outputs with some nuance. Sure there are some old clunkers on the road- but lets be straight for a moment its Maintenance and its Wages. I don't disagree that the shipper/multinationals etc MAY be utilizing these carriers direct but I would be hard pressed to say that's the majority.

Brokers are responsible for their part of the equation. As a fellow countryman, I would hope that an individual who will be able to collect CPP/EI/WSIB when the time comes would concern themselves with ensuring that they are doing their part for this nation. Or not - and in that case, penalties should fall on the feet of the broker to make up the balance owed. How that happens/is determined, administrated - not sure, I'm not a policy guy.

Or we can just magically pretend that Driver Inc. Company 1 just happens to have a backhaul/headhaul right around the corner and this isn't skirting rules - its all due to efficiencies....

 

[loaders]

Trucking has the same inputs and outputs with some nuance. Sure there are some old clunkers on the road- but lets be straight for a moment its Maintenance and its Wages. I don't disagree that the shipper/multinationals etc MAY be utilizing these carriers direct but I would be hard pressed to say that's the majority.

Brokers are responsible for their part of the equation. As a fellow countryman, I would hope that an individual who will be able to collect CPP/EI/WSIB when the time comes would concern themselves with ensuring that they are doing their part for this nation. Or not - and in that case, penalties should fall on the feet of the broker to make up the balance owed. How that happens/is determined, administrated - not sure, I'm not a policy guy.

Or we can just magically pretend that Driver Inc. Company 1 just happens to have a backhaul/headhaul right around the corner and this isn't skirting rules - its all due to efficiencies....

What!!!,! Now you want brokers to be responsible for carriers paying their proper source deductions! Jesus Christ, what next…ensuring they pay corporate income taxes? When I pay a carrier’s invoice for services rendered, my obligation to that carrier ceases. What he does with those funds is not my responsibility. He can stiff his employees, stop making spousal support, short pay his truck payments, default on his mortgage, blow it all in Vegas…whatever, it is not, nor should it be my concern. Independent business owners, by their very nature, are free to make any and all decisions regarding their business, ethical or otherwise, legal or illegal. If they break the law, the onus should be on law enforcement to correct the situation, not his suppliers!

 

[BPOVFB]

I mean - I did start with the morality, but I guess that didn't tug any old CPP eligible heartstrings. I don't disagree with Free Will - but I also don't buy that experienced folks in this game don't know what they are doing when they are doing it. Have fun with your T4A's !

 

[loaders]

I mean - I did start with the morality, but I guess that didn't tug any old CPP eligible heartstrings. I don't disagree with Free Will - but I also don't buy that experienced folks in this game don't know what they are doing when they are doing it. Have fun with your T4A's !

You’re right about one thing. The fact that some folks know what they are doing when they are doing it. Namely, the carriers willfully participating in a tax evasion scheme called Driver Inc. Here is a novel and unique idea….lets go after them! Here is a question to all my carrier friends out there. When you look at your annual receivables, what percentage comes from brokers and what percentage comes from shippers? Back to my fishing analogy, what pond would you rather fish in?

 

[Rob]

You’re right about one thing. The fact that some folks know what they are doing when they are doing it. Namely, the carriers willfully participating in a tax evasion scheme called Driver Inc. Here is a novel and unique idea….lets go after them! Here is a question to all my carrier friends out there. When you look at your annual receivables, what percentage comes from brokers and what percentage comes from shippers? Back to my fishing analogy, what pond would you rather fish in?

Hey loaders Canada is not broke remember that post.. You posted it and now when you see one of the reasons Canada is broke and they want your help to fix it you have your panties in a wad. Remember you wanted the Liberals you got them now deal with it like a big boy. T4a for every carrier over 500 bucks have fun getting all their business and gst numbers.. Elbows UP..

 

[broker]

Does anyone know about the Factoring companies? How do we go about the carriers that use them?

Yes! I asked about this on my second call with the CRA - I had to explain what a factoring company is etc. This is getting out of hand, I shouldn't be teaching the CRA about what goes on... regardless, to answer your question - you issue it to the carrier directly, apparently the factoring company is irrelevant. Which also makes no sense because I am legally required to pay them, so it would make sense that I would issue them a T4A.

Just a T4A for the carrier, not the factoring company.

 

[Rosalinda]

Yes! I asked about this on my second call with the CRA - I had to explain what a factoring company is etc. This is getting out of hand, I shouldn't be teaching the CRA about what goes on... regardless, to answer your question - you issue it to the carrier directly, apparently the factoring company is irrelevant. Which also makes no sense because I am legally required to pay them, so it would make sense that I would issue them a T4A.

Just a T4A for the carrier, not the factoring company.

Thank you!

 

[Rob]

Back to my fishing analogy, what pond would you rather fish in?

85-90 and 10-15 shippers over brokers.. I like the big pond the broker one is too volatile to greed IMHO.

 

[loaders]

One thing does give me a wee bit of comfort in this whole fiasco, is knowing that all of my carrier friends who operate full blown, properly registered and licensed freight brokerages and those who simply “dabble” in the freight brokerage side of things will all be doing the same tedious work to satisfy CRA. As the expression goes, “misery loves company” . Additionally, once our task is complete and all of the T4As have been issued to carriers and also sent to CRA, all of that data might very well result in an audit of a carriers operation. I mean, that is supposed to be the purpose to this whole thing right….weeding out the bad apples? They will be looking for you to account for every dollar you received from my firm and the countless other brokers you deal with, making sure that some of that money wasn’t spent in the Driver Inc scheme. Funny thing about CRA audits, sometimes they discover other, questionable items not really related to their initial investigation. I am sure that each and everyone of our carrier suppliers has their payroll ledgers and accounting systems completely current and up to date. Yes, this will be a time consuming and potentially costly endeavour. However, once complete for 2025, next year should be a breeze. I for one, will be watching with great interest to see if our work results in any audits and possible charges.

 

[Mario]

So I have been getting emails from people we have done work for once or twice and requesting the below. Am I the only one who thinks this information can be used to impersonate a company and get loads? Most they already have but Articles of Incorporation and Payroll Number!

In order to produce T4A slips, we require the following information.



1. Legal Business Name

2. Business Number

3. Mailing Address

4. Articles of Incorporation

5. Payroll Number

6. GST/HST Number

 

[Rob]

One thing does give me a wee bit of comfort in this whole fiasco, is knowing that all of my carrier friends who operate full blown, properly registered and licensed freight brokerages and those who simply “dabble” in the freight brokerage side of things will all be doing the same tedious work to satisfy CRA. As the expression goes, “misery loves company” . Additionally, once our task is complete and all of the T4As have been issued to carriers and also sent to CRA, all of that data might very well result in an audit of a carriers operation. I mean, that is supposed to be the purpose to this whole thing right….weeding out the bad apples? They will be looking for you to account for every dollar you received from my firm and the countless other brokers you deal with, making sure that some of that money wasn’t spent in the Driver Inc scheme. Funny thing about CRA audits, sometimes they discover other, questionable items not really related to their initial investigation. I am sure that each and everyone of our carrier suppliers has their payroll ledgers and accounting systems completely current and up to date. Yes, this will be a time consuming and potentially costly endeavour. However, once complete for 2025, next year should be a breeze. I for one, will be watching with great interest to see if our work results in any audits and possible charges.

Let's hope it does and they find the bad actors and get rid of some of them. Had just about every alphabet agency in here with audits before and passed everyone with flying colours. Running legit has that effect on audits. Integrated systems help with being ontime and up to date.

 

[loaders]

So I have been getting emails from people we have done work for once or twice and requesting the below. Am I the only one who thinks this information can be used to impersonate a company and get loads? Most they already have but Articles of Incorporation and Payroll Number!

In order to produce T4A slips, we require the following information.



1. Legal Business Name

2. Business Number

3. Mailing Address

4. Articles of Incorporation

5. Payroll Number

6. GST/HST Number

It is our understanding that legal name, mailing address, type of ownership and business number is all that’s required. In the event that a carrier were to refuse to provide the required information, the T4A is to be issued anyway and CRA will deal with it.
This is a giant cluster f**k with any type of positive outcome highly unlikely.

 

[Brenda]

Does anyone know about the Factoring companies? How do we go about the carriers that use them?

The T4A is made to the carrier. Not the Factoring company. This is what CRA told us. Again - do your own due diligence.

 

[Freight17]

So I have been getting emails from people we have done work for once or twice and requesting the below. Am I the only one who thinks this information can be used to impersonate a company and get loads? Most they already have but Articles of Incorporation and Payroll Number!

In order to produce T4A slips, we require the following information.



1. Legal Business Name

2. Business Number

3. Mailing Address

4. Articles of Incorporation

5. Payroll Number

6. GST/HST Number

We received this same request (and we are a broker) from a company we had never dealt with. I deleted it as soon as I seen #4. Likely a scammer trying to take advantage of the chaos to impersonate a company.