Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, or

For the transition period from to                              to                             

Commission file number 001-15451

United Parcel Service, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(404) 828-6000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý    No o

        There were 664,024,333 Class A shares, and 452,382,090 Class B shares, with a par value of $0.01 per share outstanding at August 13, 2002.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
June 30, 2002 (unaudited) and December 31, 2001
(In millions, except per share amounts)

See notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.

2

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME
Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2002 and 2001
(In millions, except per share amounts)
(unaudited)

See notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.

3

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF SHAREOWNERS' EQUITY
Six Months Ended June 30, 2002
(In millions, except per share amounts)
(unaudited)

See notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.

4

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Six Months Ended June 30, 2002 and 2001
(In millions)
(unaudited)

See notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.

5

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1.    For interim consolidated financial statement purposes, we compute our tax provision on the basis of our estimated annual effective income tax rate, and provide for accruals under our various employee benefit plans for each three month period based on one quarter of the estimated annual expense.

2.    In our opinion, the accompanying interim, unaudited, consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly our financial position as of June 30, 2002, our results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, and cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001. The results reported in these consolidated financial statements should not be regarded as necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for the entire year. The interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

        Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

3.    The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share (in millions, except per share amounts):

4.    On August 9, 1999, the United States Tax Court held that we were liable for tax on income of Overseas Partners Ltd. ("OPL"), a Bermuda company that had reinsured excess value ("EV") package insurance purchased by our customers beginning in 1984, and that we were liable for additional tax for the 1983 and 1984 tax years. The Court held that for the 1984 tax year we were liable for taxes of $31 million on income reported by OPL, penalties and penalty interest of $93 million, and interest for a total after-tax exposure estimated at approximately $246 million.

        On June 20, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court's decision. On September 13, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit denied the IRS's petition to have the appeal reheard en banc. The IRS did not attempt to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and,

6

consequently, the case has been remanded to the Tax Court to consider alternative arguments raised by the parties. At this time, we do not know what the outcome of the remanded proceedings in the Tax Court will be.

        The IRS has taken similar positions to those advanced in the Tax Court decision for tax years subsequent to 1984. Tax years 1985 through 1990 currently are docketed in the Tax Court, although no trial date has been set pending resolution of the case that covers the 1984 year. Further, the IRS has issued a report asserting similar positions for the 1991 through 1994 tax years, and we expect the IRS to take similar positions for tax years 1995 through 1999. Based on the Tax Court decision, we estimate that our total after-tax exposure for tax years 1984 through 1999 could be as high as $2.353 billion.

        In our second quarter 1999 financial statements, we recorded a tax assessment charge of $1.786 billion, which included an amount for related state tax liabilities. The charge included taxes of $915 million and interest of $871 million. This assessment resulted in a tax benefit of $344 million related to the interest component of the assessment. As a result, our net charge to net income for the tax assessment was $1.442 billion, increasing our total after-tax reserve at that time with respect to these matters to $1.672 billion. The tax benefit of deductible interest was included in income taxes in 1999; however, since none of the income on which this tax assessment is based is our income, we did not classify the tax charge as income taxes.

        We determine the size of our reserve with respect to these matters in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In 1999, we estimated our most likely liability based on the initial Tax Court decision. In making this determination, we concluded that, based on the Tax Court decision, it was more likely that we would be required to pay taxes on income reported by OPL and interest, but that it was not probable that we would be required to pay any penalties and penalty interest. In our prior estimation, if penalties and penalty interest ultimately were determined to be payable, we would have had to record an additional charge of up to $681 million. We currently do not know what impact the Eleventh Circuit decision and the remanded proceedings in the Tax Court ultimately will have on our recorded reserve and above estimations for this matter.

        Further, as a result of the unfavorable Tax Court decision, and in order to stop the potential accrual of additional interest that might ultimately be determined to be due to the IRS, on August 31, 1999, we paid $1.349 billion and, on August 8, 2000, we paid an additional $91 million, to the IRS related to these matters for the 1984 through 1994 tax years. We included the profit of the EV insurance program, using the IRS's methodology for calculating these amounts, for both 1998 and 1999 in filings we made with the IRS in 1999. In February 2000, we paid $339 million to the IRS related to these matters for the 1995 through 1997 tax years. These amounts will remain with the IRS pending further proceedings, as discussed below.

        The EV program that was the subject of the Tax Court decision has been changed since September 1999. The revised arrangement should eliminate the issues considered by the Tax Court and the Eleventh Circuit related to OPL.

        In May 2002, we began settlement discussions with the IRS pursuant to mediation conducted by a judge of the Tax Court. Although these settlement discussions are still in process, we and the IRS have reached a tentative basis for settlement of all outstanding tax issues related to EV package insurance. If this tentative basis for settlement becomes final, we expect to receive a refund or credit of some of the amount we previously paid to the IRS.

        Many steps are required before the amount of any refund or credit associated with the EV package insurance issues is determined or before a settlement would become final. These steps will

7

likely take at least several months and could take substantially longer. There can be no assurance that the tentative basis for settlement will not materially change, or that it or any other settlement will be approved and finalized. If we are unable to finalize a settlement, we intend to vigorously defend the remanded proceedings in the Tax Court.

        There are other outstanding tax issues that are unrelated to EV package insurance for tax years covered by the tentative basis for settlement. These issues are described below. The IRS will not issue refunds for a given tax year until all matters for that tax year are resolved. Accordingly, we will not be able to determine the availability, timing or amount of any potential refunds until these unrelated tax issues are concluded.

        Therefore, since contingencies continue to exist and we cannot accurately predict the availability, timing or amount of a possible refund or credit, we are not in a position to reverse any portion of the tax assessment charges that we recorded after the August 1999 Tax Court decision.

        The IRS has proposed adjustments, unrelated to the EV package insurance matters discussed above, regarding the allowance of deductions and certain losses, the characterization of expenses as capital rather than ordinary, the treatment of certain income, and our entitlement to the investment tax credit and the research tax credit in the 1985 through 1990 tax years. The proposed adjustments would result in $16 million of additional income tax expense. Also, the IRS has issued a report taking a similar position with respect to some of these issues for each of the years from 1991 through 1994. This report proposes adjustments that would result in $155 million in additional income tax expense. For the 1985 through 1994 tax years, unpaid interest on these adjustments through June 30, 2002 could aggregate up to approximately $463 million, after the benefit of related tax deductions. We expect that we will prevail on substantially all of these issues. Specifically, we believe that our practice of expensing the items that the IRS alleges should have been capitalized is consistent with the practices of other industry participants. The IRS may take similar positions with respect to some of these issues for each of the years 1995 through 2001. The IRS's proposed adjustments include penalties and penalty interest. We believe that the possibility that such penalties and penalty interest will be sustained is remote. We believe that the eventual resolution of these issues will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

        We are named as a defendant in twenty-four pending lawsuits that seek to hold us liable for the collection of premiums for EV insurance in connection with package shipments since 1984. Based on a variety of state and federal tort, contract and statutory claims, these cases generally claim that we failed to remit collected EV premiums to an independent insurer; we failed to provide promised EV insurance; we acted as an insurer without complying with state insurance laws and regulations; and the price for EV insurance was excessive.

        These actions all were filed after the August 9, 1999 Tax Court decision. As discussed above, on June 20, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in our favor and reversed the Tax Court decision.

        These twenty-four cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-district litigation proceeding ("MDL Proceeding") in federal court in New York. The Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss, granting our motion to dismiss with respect to all of the plaintiffs' tort claims and all of their breach of contract claims prior to August 26, 1994. Claims asserted under specific federal statutes, and breach of contract claims commencing on August 26, 1994, may proceed at this time. UPS intends to continue to seek dismissal of these remaining claims. Motions to remand several of these cases to state court are pending.

8

        As previously disclosed, in addition to the cases in which UPS is named as a defendant, there is also an action, Smith v. Mail Boxes Etc., against Mail Boxes Etc. and its franchisees relating to UPS EV insurance purchased through Mail Boxes Etc. centers. This case also has been consolidated into the MDL Proceeding. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case remanded back to state court.

        We believe that the allegations in these cases have no merit and intend to continue to defend them vigorously. The ultimate resolution of these cases cannot presently be determined.

        In addition, we are a defendant in various other lawsuits that arose in the normal course of business. We believe that the eventual resolution of these cases will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

5.    We report our operations in three segments: U.S. domestic package operations, international package operations and non-package operations. Package operations represent our core business and are divided into regional operations around the world. Regional operations managers are responsible for both domestic and export operations within their geographic region. International package operations include shipments wholly outside the U.S. as well as shipments with either origin or distribution outside the U.S. Non-package operations, which include the UPS Logistics Group and UPS Freight Services, are distinct from package operations and are thus managed and reported separately.

        Segment information for the three and six months ended June 30 is as follows (in millions):

        Two changes were made during the first quarter of 2002, which affect revenue reporting within the non-package segment. Neither of these changes have any effect on current or prior period income. First, effective January 1, 2002, the results of operations of the Transportation Unit of our Logistics Group were moved to our Freight Services Group. Amounts in prior periods have been reclassified for comparison purposes.

        Second, our Logistics Group has historically reported revenue from freight under management on a gross basis, whereas our Freight Services Group, which was formed with the acquisition of Fritz Companies, Inc. in the second quarter of 2001, reports revenue net of freight under management. Beginning with the first quarter of 2002, we are now reporting revenue for both the Logistics Group and Freight Services net of freight under management. Amounts for prior periods have been modified

9

to reflect revenue net of freight under management for comparison purposes. Following is a reconciliation of gross to net revenue for the non-package segment (in millions):

        Non-package operating profit included $28 and $29 million for the three months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively, and $56 million for each of the six month periods ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, of intersegment profit, with a corresponding amount of operating expense, which reduces operating profit, included in the U.S. domestic package segment.

6.    The major components of other operating expenses for the three and six months ended June 30 are as follows (in millions):

7.    Other assets as of June 30, 2002 and December 31, 2001 consist of the following (in millions):

10

8.    Effective January 1, 2002, we adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 142 "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" (FAS 142). Under the provisions of FAS 142, goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives are no longer amortized, but rather are subjected to periodic impairment testing. The transitional impairment test required by FAS 142 is a two-step process. The first step involves estimating the fair value of each reporting unit that has goodwill assigned to it and comparing the estimated fair value to the reporting unit's carrying value. A second step is required if the reporting unit's estimated fair value is less than its carrying value. The second step of the impairment test involves estimating the fair value of the goodwill and comparing that estimate to the goodwill's carrying value. A shortfall of the goodwill's fair value below carrying value represents the amount of goodwill impairment.

        We have completed the first step of the impairment testing described above, but we have not completed the second step. Our approach to determining fair value is primarily based on the use of a discounted cash flow methodology. Pursuant to the results of the first step, there is an indication we may have some limited impairment within our non-package segment. The amount of impairment will be determined upon completion of the second step of the impairment test, which will occur by year-end 2002.

        The following table indicates the allocation of goodwill by reportable segment, as of June 30, 2002 and December 31, 2001 (in millions):

        Goodwill in the international package and non-package segments increased from year-end due to the resolution of purchase price contingencies and other purchase price adjustments to acquisitions closed in 2001.

        Intangible assets consisting of franchise rights, non-compete agreements, licenses, and patents of $97 million continue to be amortized under the provisions of FAS 142 because they have finite lives. The remaining intangible assets, consisting of trade names, of $13 million are considered indefinite-lived intangible assets under FAS 142, and are no longer being amortized.

        Goodwill amortization ceased upon the implementation of FAS 142 on January 1, 2002. The following table indicates the impact on net income and earnings per share if the non-amortization

11

provisions of FAS 142 had been applied beginning January 1, 2001 (in millions, except per share amounts):

9.    Effective January 1, 2001, we adopted FASB Statement No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" (FAS 133), as amended by Statements No. 137 and No. 138. FAS 133, as amended, requires us to record all financial derivative instruments on our balance sheet at fair value. Derivatives not designated as hedges must be adjusted to fair value through income. If a derivative is designated as a hedge, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in its fair value that are considered to be effective, as defined, either offset the change in fair value of the hedged assets, liabilities, or firm commitments through income, or are recorded in other comprehensive income (OCI) until the hedged item is recorded in income. Any portion of a change in a derivative's fair value that is considered to be ineffective, or is excluded from the measurement of effectiveness, is recorded immediately in income.

        The nature of our business activities necessitates the management of various financial and market risks, including those related to changes in commodity prices, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates, and equity prices. As discussed more fully in Note 13 "Derivative Instruments and Risk Management" to our consolidated financial statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, we use derivative financial instruments to mitigate or eliminate certain of those risks. The January 1, 2001 accounting change described above affected only the pattern and timing of non-cash accounting recognition.

12

        At January 1, 2001, our financial statements were adjusted to record the cumulative effect of adopting FAS 133, as follows (in millions, except per share amounts):

(a)

For income effect, amount shown is net of adjustment to hedged items.

        The cumulative effect on income resulted primarily from marking to market the time value of option contracts used in commodity and foreign currency cash flow hedging. The cumulative effect on OCI resulted primarily from marking to market swap contracts used as cash flow hedges of anticipated foreign currency cash flows and anticipated purchases of energy products.

13

Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Revenue, Volume and Revenue Per Piece

        The following tables set forth information showing the change in revenue, average daily package volume and average revenue per piece, both in dollars or amounts and in percentage terms: