Employee says company extended work trip, but denied paying minor additional expense. So he made what they were covering 6 times more expensive

Have you ever come across a corporate policy that feels like it’s just designed to frustrate you? A user on Reddit recently shared a story in the subreddit MaliciousCompliance about how they dealt with a rigid, penny-pinching expense policy they believed was unfair. It’s important to note that this is an allegation from the Reddit user Slobbadobbavich, and we have no way to confirm the specific details of their story (though many will, sadly, find it relatable).

According to the post, the situation started when the user was working away from home, living in a hotel and traveling back on weekends. They were accustomed to packing just enough clothes for a standard week. Everything changed when they received a call from their boss with a new requirement. “I got a call saying they needed me to work the weekend too which would mean two weeks solid and only one weeks worth of clothes,” the user explained.

So the Redditor noted that they reached out to their boss to see if they could cover the cost of fresh socks and underwear for the extra days. “I told my boss I needed some new underwear and socks as I’d ran out and I’d make do with other clothes as is. I was told no, expenses won’t cover that,” the user alleged.

Therein began the malicious compliance

The Redditor noted that since the company wouldn’t cover the small cost of new undergarments, the user decided to use the hotel’s laundry service instead, which came at a premium cost. “Cue malicious compliance. I put my entire bag of clothes in the hotel laundry bag. £5 for every pair of socks, underwear and £10 for every shirt and trousers and put the whole lot through expenses.” 

“Cost them £120,” the Redditor claimed, “when I would have only spent £20 on the underwear and socks.” That’s almost $160 for an original purchase that might have cost $26.64 according to the original poster. In a different case of compliance that did not go well for the company, a Redditor followed instructions to put up a company review, except it was mathematically precise and brutally honest. 

Many in the Reddit community found the situation ironic. One user noted, “That’s how they nickel and dime themselves broke. Good story.” Another added, “Penny smart dollar dumb.” In one case, a woman managed to take the instruction to apologize to make the end humiliation for her husband who cheated on her much larger with multiple ‘apologies.’

Someone else shared a similar experience: “Reminds me of an old job where they refused to give me a company credit card, but they’d give me hotel charge backs. When on work trips instead of going to a local cafe for a $10 coffee and muffin, I’d sit down for a $45 buffet breakfast in the hotel and still just have a coffee and muffin.” 

Some users, with an idea of accounting and tax laws, were quick to point out that the poster had actually stumbled across a business problem. One user observed, “Daft as it sounds it’s probably a tax requirement. If you get clothes that’s regarded as payment in kind, whereas the cleaning bill isn’t.” 

It seems like these kinds of headaches are fairly common in corporate environments. According to Investopedia, businesses must track expenses to determine their taxable net income. This would be costs incurred in the ordinary course of business. The IRS generally requires that these expenses be “ordinary and necessary” to be tax-deductible. If an expense is deemed to have a personal benefit rather than a business one, it typically isn’t deductible.

This is where things get tricky with clothing. As accounting firm Ramp points out, determining the correct category for clothing can be a headache for companies. Ramp notes that clothing expenses are generally categorized based on use, such as uniforms or branded marketing apparel. However, standard professional attire is usually considered a personal expense and isn’t deductible, even if it’s worn for work. 

Regardless of the tax reasoning, the result for the company was a much higher bill. One commenter illustrated how fighting over small expenses can have higher costs. “My large expense report was kicked back because my expenses included a metrocard swipe (<$2.00) with no receipt. My manager approved the expense report, the bean counters kicked it back.” 

They wote, “I appealed, and re-appealed. CFO had to approve my expense report and needed a call. After the situation was explained, he approved my expense report to be paid out in full and spent the rest of the time berating everyone on the call. Within a few weeks, any charge less than x dollars didn’t require a receipt. That argument over <$2.00 cost the company several thousand dollars in lost productivity.”