Would we be looking for cash payments from the car dealer to the dad in that situation? Is that what we're looking for?
I'm unfamiliar with the case law on this, and you keep saying “facts”. That's fine, but what are those facts that would lead the CRA to say, “Okay, you guys are gaming the system; there is no doubt about it. You're just circumventing the rules that are meant to make the use of an automobile an employee benefit”? Is it that cash payment? They're unrelated; they're at arm's length. That's where I think we would normally look. The third party providing the vehicle is not at arm's length from the employer or the car dealership, in my example, so we know what's going on here.
What are these facts and how do we avoid unintended consequences here?