You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

1
-1

[–] Myrv 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Here in the US, it would be a simple matter to add the cost of the vehicle as part of the shareholder disbursement.

And I mentioned that in my response to you. If the owner did claim the vehicle as a taxable benefit then I agree with you, it would be a personal vehicle and the "smoking police" don't have a leg to stand on. I get the impression though this wasn't the case. The article merely states the car was registered to the company. It doesn't state what its tax status was.