Manual Logs vs. GPS Tracking: Which is Safer for Audits?
Is "set and forget" GPS tracking actually risky? We compare manual logging vs. automated GPS and why a hybrid approach might be your best defense.
The Risk of "Set and Forget"
Automated GPS tracking sounds perfect. You install a device and never think about it again. But for IFTA audits, this passivity can be a liability.
When Technology Fails
GPS trackers can lose signal, blow a fuse, or simply glitch. If you aren't checking it daily, you might discover a 3-week gap in your data only when you go to file your taxes. By then, it's too late to reconstruct the trips.
The Case for Active Logging
Active Logging—where the driver manually confirms the start and end odometer readings—creates a stronger defense. It proves the driver was aware of and validated the data daily. It forces you to catch odometer discrepancies immediately.
Odometer Continuity is King
Remember, IFTA audits revolve around odometer readings. If your GPS track says you drove 1,000 miles but your odometer only advanced 950, you have a flag. Manual entry forces you to reconcile these numbers in real-time.
Total Control: FastIFTA supports a hybrid approach. Use our Manual Entry for total control and validation, ensuring your logs always match your dashboard odometer perfectly.