The biggest problem with cars and similar perks is this - in Canada, any perk given to an employee is considered taxable income at the equivalent value. I.e. if XYZ Limited gives its sales manager a car, and he uses it for personal use, he must pay tax as if XYZ had given him the equivalent of payments, maitnenance, etc. in cash.
This can be mitigated by keeping a log of what proportion of the mileage is devoted to company business. However, “commute to regular place of employment” is not considered company business, since everyone does it and the tax system gives no break to commuting with your own car.
Some employees may want a minivan rather than a BMW 330; some may not want to expose expensive upholstery to rambunctious toddlers who drop mashable chocolate and stain-making food on the seats and floor; some may need a bigger vehicle. All in all, giving cash and letting the employee make his own choices makes sense except when appearances (i.e. sales reps) are an issue.
The tax rules changed about 1980. Before that, a car or housing or club membeships were free perks. The company wrote them off, and the employee got a free extra. Not now…
Not sure the details in other countries, but I believe it works the same in the USA, hence the limited company car culture.
In the Beatles song, **Taxman, **
“Let me tell you how it’s going to be,
One for you nineteen for me…”
An article I read about pre-Thatcher Britain mentioned that in the 1970s the top marginal tax rate was 84% (socialism, anyone?). For top-paid employees, you had to break the bank to give them enough money for them to take home and appreciable chunk of cash; however, company cars were not taxable at the time, so a company could give the high-paid engineer, accountant, executive, or lawyer his own car, and even a chauffeur, cheaper than giving him a whack of take-home cash.