Okay.
I guess where the loophole would come in, then, is that we have the corporation that employs the employee and then we have another corporation providing the vehicle. However, the court must have found that even though there was some type of relationship between these two corporations, they were still dealing at arm's length, and then you put in the provision.
You're going back to facts again, so what's the difference between the factual test to determine whether this individual is receiving this car as part of their employment from a third party—there's a relationship of some sort there between the two corporations—and the arm's-length test between the two corporations? The court obviously found—at least I'm assuming, as I'm not familiar with the case law—that they were dealing at arm's length there. It's a bit confusing. I can clarify if I didn't make sense there.