You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
14

[–] ilovepussy 0 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.

0
3

[–] Mr_YUP 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I cant believe Canada has a law like that

0
5

[–] ilovepussy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That's what happens when libtards take control. If a right-winger doesn't like something, they avoid it, if a libtard doesn't like something, nobody can have it.

1
-1

[–] Myrv 1 point -1 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.

0
2

[–] ilovepussy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You are making a big assumption that the owner is taking the vehicle and not declaring it. Here in the US, it would be a simple matter to add the cost of the vehicle as part of the shareholder disbursement. And, if done that way, it would be perfectly legal both from a tax perspective and as a non-workplace vehicle, even thought it was technically bought by the company, using company funds. I gather from the article that the owner has a good attorney, who, if they're worth anything, has done their job, and protected him from the tax collector. The fact that it is for his exclusive use, and not a "workplace" where employees may be subjected to 2nd hand smoke, makes the judges decision a correct one.