Finance committee  No. I mean, in that situation the parent wouldn't be providing it. There has to be some sort of link to the employment relationship. It's a benefit that is being provided to the person because they are an employee. If a parent is providing something to their child to use related

Finance committee  I'm not sure. I think there was some sort of arrangement between the companies. The expectation would be that this is going to be a really narrow situation, like I said, because obviously, like you said, you're not going to have companies just providing cars to random people for

Finance committee  Yes, can you repeat the question, if you don't mind?

Finance committee  Well, in your example for the issue, if that car was provided by company B and is not related to company A, then it wouldn't have been picked up under the current rule. Now, the rule would look at whether that car is being provided by company B to the employee of company A as a r

Finance committee  I think it would be a question of looking at the entire picture to see whether company B is providing that car as a consequence of the individual's employment. In a situation where that's happening, there's probably some connection between company A and company B. Otherwise it wo

Finance committee  The previous test was whether company A and company B were related. You can be at non-arm’s length and not be related. One option would have been to make the amendment look at whether company A and company B were dealing not at arm’s length. Instead, the way the amendment was don

Finance committee  In that situation, it doesn't seem as though there would be any reason to think the car was being provided to the son as a benefit through his employment.

Finance committee  The rule would apply with respect to the employee getting the car as a consequence of their employment. I think in the situation that you described, in which a father is providing a car to their child, it wouldn't be reasonable to conclude that the car is being provided as a cons

Finance committee  Well, it depends on the situation, but if you're looking at corporations, if one corporation controls the other corporation, then they're considered not to be at arm's length, or if they're controlled by the same person or are part of a group of companies that are controlled by t

Finance committee  I don't think it would make a material difference in terms of the complexity. The rules already exist. They're just being amended to effectively say that, if the employee is receiving the benefit in the course of their employment, then the rules apply, and if the benefit is provi

Finance committee  The car would have to be provided in the course of the employee's employment, so if there's no connection to their employment, then the rule wouldn't apply.

Finance committee  A number of the rules in the Income Tax Act that create employment benefits look at whether something is being provided to the employee as compensation, effectively, for their employment, so I think it would be determined in the same manner as the other rules. It would be a factu

Finance committee  I think it would depend on the facts of the situation, but I think one example would be this: If someone is receiving a car from a third party and they're not paying to use that car, then it would be reasonable to assume that there is some sort of quid pro quo in that situation,

Finance committee  I think, again, you would need to look at the situation. We don't expect that there are a lot of situations in which someone receives a car from a third party and does not pay for it and it is unclear as to why they're getting it. I think we're talking about a niche situation her

Finance committee  It addresses some narrow situations where there have been employers who have engaged.... In an attempt to avoid the current rules, they have had a person who is not related to the employer provide the vehicle to the employee, or they have provided the vehicle to someone who is no