You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Except this wasn't really about personal freedom. You can smoke in your own personal car as long there are no children in it (which I believe is a good rule). Problem was, his car was registered to his business and you are not allowed to smoke in the workplace (which I also believe is a good rule). So either this guy was breaking the law by registering a personal vehicle as a business vehicle or he was smoking in the workplace (he can't have it both ways). Looks like he successfully defended himself by saying the vehicle was only ever used for personal use which means Revenue Canada should now be knocking on his door about his "business" expense.
[+]ilovepussy0 points14 points14 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]ilovepussy0 points
14 points
14 points
(+14|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Except, that as an officer of the company, and not an employee, a company vehicle may well be a perk, and even though it is only used as a personal vehicle, and not a work vehicle, it would still be legal, and not a workplace. Thereby, complying with both. Which is what I think the court determined.
There is nothing wrong with providing a vehicle as a perk as long as it is then treated as a taxable benefit for the person receiving said perk. That at least is how it is suppose to be done. In this case the owner took a perk without declaring it as such (as far as I can tell). It was registered as a work vehicle and thus should have been treated as one. In reality he should probably have just purchased the vehicle under his name and charged the mileage back to the company.
I'm not sure where personal freedom comes in here. If the car was privately owned the government wouldn't be involved and the owner could exercise his personal freedoms as he wants. In this case though the car belonged to the corporation and as such was part of the workplace. The government is responsible for workplace safety and has decided smoking in the workplace is not allowed. So smoking in the car is illegal.
If the car was provided as a taxable benefit the owner would be clear to do whatever he wanted in the car. Alternatively the owner could have purchased the vehicle himself then charged mileage back to the company. Instead the owner decided to buy the vehicle as a corporate asset. I can only assume for some kind of tax benefit. As corporations are artificial constructs by will of the government they can set whatever rules they want and the owner has to follow them. Either the car is corporate or private, he can't claim it as both.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Myrv 10 points -6 points 4 points (+4|-10) ago
Except this wasn't really about personal freedom. You can smoke in your own personal car as long there are no children in it (which I believe is a good rule). Problem was, his car was registered to his business and you are not allowed to smoke in the workplace (which I also believe is a good rule). So either this guy was breaking the law by registering a personal vehicle as a business vehicle or he was smoking in the workplace (he can't have it both ways). Looks like he successfully defended himself by saying the vehicle was only ever used for personal use which means Revenue Canada should now be knocking on his door about his "business" expense.
[–] ilovepussy 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago (edited ago)
Except, that as an officer of the company, and not an employee, a company vehicle may well be a perk, and even though it is only used as a personal vehicle, and not a work vehicle, it would still be legal, and not a workplace. Thereby, complying with both. Which is what I think the court determined.
[–] Mr_YUP 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I cant believe Canada has a law like that
[–] Myrv 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
There is nothing wrong with providing a vehicle as a perk as long as it is then treated as a taxable benefit for the person receiving said perk. That at least is how it is suppose to be done. In this case the owner took a perk without declaring it as such (as far as I can tell). It was registered as a work vehicle and thus should have been treated as one. In reality he should probably have just purchased the vehicle under his name and charged the mileage back to the company.
[–] goatsandbros 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
"It's the law, so it must be right!"
Go suck Kathleen Wynn's dick, faggot.
[–] Chiefpacman 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
What is personal freedom in your opinion?
Your argument isnt really maning sense. What you're trying to say is, in this case it's okay for personal liberties to be infringed.
[–] Myrv 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I'm not sure where personal freedom comes in here. If the car was privately owned the government wouldn't be involved and the owner could exercise his personal freedoms as he wants. In this case though the car belonged to the corporation and as such was part of the workplace. The government is responsible for workplace safety and has decided smoking in the workplace is not allowed. So smoking in the car is illegal.
If the car was provided as a taxable benefit the owner would be clear to do whatever he wanted in the car. Alternatively the owner could have purchased the vehicle himself then charged mileage back to the company. Instead the owner decided to buy the vehicle as a corporate asset. I can only assume for some kind of tax benefit. As corporations are artificial constructs by will of the government they can set whatever rules they want and the owner has to follow them. Either the car is corporate or private, he can't claim it as both.