Why Fuel Costs Still Impact Small Business Profit


We don’t need to explain that fuel costs are so high right now (or the reasons why), as everyone reading this likely feels it each time they head to the pump. In any case, it’s fair to say that, while for the average person, high prices at the pump result in a frustrating experience that can drain savings, for business owners who rely on fuel to power their machinery, the increased prices can very rapidly turn into an existential threat and one that seemingly they have zero control over. These effects can rapidly cascade into other knock-on effects, with the only real way to mitigate as much as is realistically possible being to know how such cost increases will affect the bottom line. 

The Direct Cost Burden

As we noted, there are multiple effects that a higher cost of fuel can cause, ranging from the obvious to the less so. When it comes to the former, the consequences tend to be immediate and hard-hitting, with the latter issues prone to coming in different forms later down the line. The amount and consequence of the effects will differ from industry to industry, but broadly speaking, when costs increase, bottom lines will look far more anemic, sometimes to the point where it begins to eat into net profit and potentially results in significant losses over time. 

For companies relying on heavy plant, they suffer tremendously as margins are often tight, and there is no way to avoid the rising cost by, say, electrifying their machinery, and any delays result in fines and loss of reputation that has been built up over a long time. The only way for many to survive is to reinvest in more efficient machinery like the Cummins ISM engine in a bid to reduce the amount of fuel used during operation. Some of the more obvious examples of how higher fuel costs impact businesses include:

  • Logistics and distribution: The rising cost of so-called “last-mile delivery” is something that affects almost all businesses, regardless of whether they actually use fuel or not. For logistics companies, the increase has to be absorbed somewhere along the chain, and it usually ends up either being passed on in some number to the end customer or shared between them.
  • Service-based operations: Businesses that operate mobility are impacted because their expenses go up from the need to use fuel to bring them to and from a location.
  • Energy surcharge: To maintain their margins, most businesses will apply an energy surcharge to their invoices, allowing them to pass the cost onto their clients without altering any contractual obligations. 

Hidden Cascade Effects

There are other, unexpected effects that can harm all aspects of a business, beyond the obvious ones mentioned earlier. These can be broken down into four broadly defined categories, each with its own knock-on implications:

  1. Fuel prices rise → Shipping and logistics costs increase
  2. Suppliers add fuel surcharges → Wholesale prices climb
  3. Small businesses absorb or pass on costs → Margin compression or customer loss
  4. Reduced purchasing power → Lower sales volume

All of these outcomes can end up leading to a vicious cycle whereby businesses either lose money via lower margins or lose money from customers unwilling to absorb costs. Although certain industries are less affected by this cycle than others, all will be touched by it in one form or another.

Operational Solutions & Mitigation Strategies’

Despite the seemingly dire situation, particularly due to the seemingly endless geopolitical events causing higher costs at the pump, there is still hope. There are some mitigation strategies that businesses can utilize to reduce the impact on operations. 

Strategy Implementation Possible constraints
Route optimization Combining GPS data with AI solutions can help create new routes that reduce idle times and suggest newer, more efficient ones. This can eventually lead to diminishing results once routes have been maximized to their full extent.
Fuel-efficient vehicles Transitioning to new, more fuel-efficient routes can minimize fuel costs per mile. High upfront costs that may be prohibitive for SMEs and simply not worth the capex for larger ones.
Minimum order thresholds Requiring a higher spend threshold before delivery fees are reduced. Could alienate existing customers and cause a fall in custom due to competition not following suit.

Note: These won’t apply to all industries and only offer an example of some options at your disposal.

Small Business Coach: A Custom Carpentry Success Story

Key Takeaways on Fuel Costs

Fuel prices have been a massive burden for companies in all sorts of industries, and any increase in prices can have cascading effects that range from a dip in profits to the potential collapse of the business. Companies also have to contend with the mixture of obvious problems that they might be better able to deal with and hidden obstacles that can sometimes prove even trickier to remedy. For instance, while it is possible that an enterprise could simply raise its own prices to mitigate the additional expense and pass it on to its customers, the process is not always a simple task, particularly when markets remain volatile and when customers are increasingly feeling the pinch with other rising costs of living.

Frequently Asked Questions about Fuel Costs

Can small businesses add fuel surcharges like large shipping companies?

While theoretically and practically possible, it’s not always as easy a decision as many might think. Large multinational logistics companies have few competitors and operate a “sticky” business model. Conversely, local businesses have to contend with a larger pool of competitors; any increase in costs for the customer could meet resistance and cause them to move elsewhere.

Are electric vehicles a practical solution for small business fuel costs?

There is no yes-or-no answer here, as it depends. For some businesses, the capital expense might be worth it, but for others, it’s either not a possibility (such as construction companies) or the upfront costs are simply too prohibitive and won’t cause the ROI they expect.

How can small businesses protect profit margins during fuel price volatility?

There are several ways that small businesses can mitigate the increased expense, including adding fuel escalation clauses into new contracts, bundling deliveries, and negotiating supplier terms. But you need to be aware that any mitigation technique can have unforeseen consequences, making it vital that you think through all possibilities before implementing them.

Everyone is reeling from the massive increase in fuel prices that the world has recently experienced, and if the past is anything to go by, they aren’t going to fall anytime soon. This article has outlined a few obvious and less obvious effects facing different businesses and some options that can be used to reduce the impact.

google business page



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


When someone sets up their estate plan, one would hope that the probate process would result in the terms of the estate plan being carried out. State law often allows beneficiaries and heirs to change the terms of someone’s estate plan after they die.

For example, in Texas, beneficiaries can usually agree to override the terms of a decedent’s will and distribute assets as they see fit. This is usually carried out using a family settlement agreement. The Texas Estates Code has been amended to include more liberal rules that allow trust beneficiaries to amend or reform the terms of trusts.

Even though state law allows for these post-mortem changes, the changes can have significant Federal tax consequences. The taxes can be significant and, in some cases, can result in the probate estate owing back taxes to the IRS. The recent McDougall v. Commissioner, 163 T.C. No. 5 provides an example. The case involves the termination of a trust by the trust beneficiaries after the trust settlor died. The termination triggered a massive gift tax liability.

Facts & Procedural History

The taxpayers in this case were a surviving spouse and his spouse’s adult children. The surviving spouse inherited an interest in a trust from his wife when she died. The interest he inherited was an income interest, so he was entitled to interest earned on the trust assets.

The children inherited remainder interests in the trust assets. These interests entitled the children to ownership of the trust assets when the surviving spouse died.

The surviving spouse was the executor of his wife’s estate. He made a QTIP election, which we’ll address below, which deferred the estate taxes that would have been due on the death of his spouse.

Several years later, the surviving spouse and children entered into an out-of-court agreement to terminate the trust and to distribute the assets to the surviving spouse. The taxpayers filed gift tax returns taking the position that there were two gifts, one from the surviving spouse on termination of the trust to children and then one from the children to transfer the assets to the surviving spouse. According to the taxpayers these transfers essentially offset each other and resulted in no gift tax due.

The IRS audited the gift tax returns, did not agree with the taxpayers reciprocal gift argument, and issued a statutory notice of deficiency. The dispute ended up in the U.S. Tax Court, which issued the tax court opinion that is the basis of this article.

About the QTIP Election

To understand this court case, we have to start with the QTIP election and the general concept for when the QTIP is used. QTIP elections typically involve trusts, so we’ll start with the QTIP trust.

A QTIP trust is one that holds some or all of the trust assets in trust for the surviving spouse. The surviving spouse has to be entitled to all of the income from the trust property and be paid at least annually. The trust also has to limit the power to appoint the property to anyone other than the surviving spouse during their lifetime.

This type of arrangement is often used to ensure that the income of the assets is used for the surviving spouse of the settlor, the person who set up the trust, with the remainder interest passing to the settlor’s children. This helps avoid a situation where assets are used for or transfered to the surviving spouse’s new spouse or the surviving spouse’s children from outside of the marriage. So second marriages and mixed families.

The QTIP election is an election made on the settlor’s estate tax return and is one of several estate tax planning considerations that one has to consider. It is similar to the GST election and tax planning in some ways. It is typically made on the estate tax return of the first spouse to die, which is usually due within 9 months of death (with a possible 6-month extension).

The election creates a legal fiction that the surviving spouse owns the trust assets when really they only have an income interest. This fiction allows the settlor’s estate to claim a 100% marital deduction for estate tax purposes. This marital deduction allows the trust assets to avoid estate tax on the death of the first spouse, which is usually not allowed when the surviving spouse does not actually have an ownership interest in the property in question and the settlor spouse retains control over who gets the property when the second spouse dies. This election and tax planning involving valuation discounts can often significantly reduce ones estate tax liability. Charitable trusts can be used for similar purposes too, if there is a charitable intent involved.

The QTIP trust is an easy way the first spouse to die can limit the surviving spouse’s ability to transfer or control the property while still qualifying for the marital deduction. Similar results can be obtained using a bypass or credit shelter trust. Other strategies usually leave the surviving spouse with some control over who gets the property on their death.

Gift Tax for the Surviving Spouse

The first question in this case was whether executing the settlement agreement to terminate the trust, the surviving spouse and children triggered a gift tax.

The U.S. Tax Court concluded that it did not, which it referenced its prior opinion in Estate of Anenberg v.
Commissioner
, No. 856-21, 162 T.C. (May 20, 2024) from earlier this year. The Estate of Anenberg stands for the proposition that a surviving spouse does not make a taxable gift when a QTIP trust is terminated and all its assets are distributed to the surviving spouse. This makes sense as the marital deduction is generally allowed when property passes to the surviving spouse and the estate tax is imposed when the surviving spouse dies.

The mechanics of the actual statutes are more complex than this. This is why the U.S. Tax Court had to analyze Section 2519 so closely, and then it just applied judicial reasoning instead of a close reading and application of Section 2519. In doing so, it concluded that the surviving spouse did not give away anything of value under Section 2519 and, alternatively, that there was an incomplete gift given that the surviving spouse ended up with the assets.

Thus, in applying these principles to the current case, the tax court concluded that the surviving spouse did not make a taxable gift when the residuary trust was terminated and its assets were distributed to him. This conclusion was reached despite the fact that the termination could be viewed as, and likely was, a disposition that should trigger gift tax under Section 2519.

Gift Tax for to the Children

The tax court then turned to the question of whether the termination of the residuary trust and transfer of the assets to the surviving spouse triggered a gift tax as to the children. The tax court concluded that it did.

The reasoning here is that the children had vested remainder interests in the trust property. They gave away the right to this property by allowing the property to be transferred to the surviving spouse. Thus, when viewed before and after the transfer, the children had a decrease in their net worth. They gave something up. The tax court concluded that this was sufficient to trigger a gift tax.

The tax court did not accept the taxpayer’s arguments about a reciprocal gift which negated any gift tax. The taxpayer’s argument was that the termination of the residuary trust resulted in a taxable gift for the surviving spouse. Then it also resulted in a taxable gift for the children for the transfer back to the surviving spouse. As noted above, the tax court held that the first part of this argument–the gift tax for the surviving spouse–was not a gift and therefore did not trigger a gift tax. Thus, there could be no offsetting gift. The tax court also stated that there was no such concept as a reciprocal gift in the law that can be used to offset gift taxes. It noted that there is a concept of reciprocal trusts, but that that concept does not apply here.

To provide context, we’ll briefly take a detour to discuss reciprocal trusts. The reciprocal trust doctrine is a legal principle that addresses situations where two individuals create similar trusts for each other’s benefit. This doctrine allows the IRS and courts to “uncross” or “unwind” trusts that are interrelated and leave the grantors in approximately the same economic position as they would have been if they had created trusts naming themselves as life beneficiaries. This is similar to the economic substance doctrine that allows the IRS and/or the courts to void certain business transactions. When the IRS and/or courts apply this reciprocal trust doctrine, the result is that the trust assets are included in the settlor’s taxable estate under Sections 2036 or 2038. Again, this is not what we had in this case, so it was not applicable here according to the tax court.

    The Takeaway

    It is getting more common for beneficiaries of trusts to modify and even terminate their trusts. This can trigger significant tax liabilities, as in this case. This case helps to explain when the gift tax applies when one termites a trust. A QTIP trust can be terminated and this will not necessarily trigger gift taxes for the surviving spouse. If the termination results in the children getting their fair share of the trust assets, that may also avoid gift taxes. But as in this case, if the termination results in the surviving spouse getting more than what they otherwise would, the termination will likely trigger a gift tax for the children for the transfer to the surviving spouse.

    Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

    In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

    We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link