“117 Meaning of car … made available by reason of employment For the purposes of this Chapter a car … made available by an employer to an employee … is to be regarded as made available by reason of the employment …”
“118 Availability for private use (1) For the purposes of this Chapter a car or van made available in a tax year to an employee or a member of the employee’s family or household is to be treated as available for the employee’s or member’s private use unless in that year— (a) the terms on which it is made available prohibit such use, and (b) it is not so used. (2) In this Chapter “private use”, in relation to a car or van made available to an employee or a member of the employee’s family or household, means any use other than for the employee’s business travel (see section 171(1)).”
“120 Benefit of car treated as earnings If this Chapter applies to a car in relation to a particular tax year, the cash equivalent of the benefit of the car is to be treated as earnings from the employment for that year.”
“149 Benefit of car fuel treated as earnings (1) If in a tax year— (a) fuel is provided for a car by reason of an employee’s employment, and (b) that person is chargeable to tax in respect of the car by virtue of section 120, the cash equivalent of the benefit of the fuel is to be treated as earnings from the employment for that year. (2) The cash equivalent of the benefit of the fuel is calculated in accordance with sections 150 to 153. (3) Fuel is to be treated as provided for a car, in addition to any other way in which it may be provided, if— (a) any liability in respect of the provision of fuel for the car is discharged, (b) a non-cash voucher or a credit-token is used to obtain fuel for the car, (c) a non-cash voucher or a credit-token is used to obtain money which is spent on fuel for the car, or (d) any sum is paid in respect of expenses incurred in providing fuel for the car.”
“151 Car fuel: nil cash equivalent (1) The cash equivalent of the benefit of the fuel is nil if condition A or B is met. (2) Condition A is met if in the tax year in question— (a) the employee is required to make good to the person providing the fuel the whole of the expense incurred by that person in connection with the provision of the fuel for the employee’s private use, and (b) the employee does make good that expense. (3) Condition B is met if in the tax year in question the fuel is made available only for business travel (see section 171(1)).”
“ By reason of his employment - It seems to me that the words ‘by reason of’ are far wider than the word “therefrom” in the 1970 Act. They are deliberately designed to close the gap in taxability which was left by the House of Lords in Hochstrasser v Mayes. The words cover cases where the fact of employment is the causa sine qua non of the fringe benefits, that is, where the employee would not have received fringe benefits unless he had been an employee. The fact of employment must be one of the causes of the benefit being provided, but it need not be the sole cause, or even the dominant cause. It is sufficient if the employment was an operative cause - in the sense that it was a condition of the benefit being granted. In this case the fact of the father being employed by I.C.I. was a condition of the student being eligible for an award. There were other conditions also, such as that the student had sufficient educational attainments and had a place at a University. But still, if the father’s employment was one of the conditions, that is sufficient. If two students at a university were talking to one another - both of equal attainments in equal need - and the one asked the other ‘Why do you get this scholarship and not me?’, he would say ‘Because my father is employed by I.C.I.’. That is enough. The scholarship was provided for the son ‘by reason of the father’s employment’.”
“ As it seems to me, the obvious intention of this legislation - presumably in an attempt to produce fairness between taxpayers - is to impose tax on the value of those otherwise untaxed advantages which the employee enjoys because he is employed, advantages which may not even accrue to him directly but which, because of their receipt by a member of his household, benefit him by relieving him of an expense which he might otherwise expect to bear out of his own resources. These are, in many cases, by definition, benefits which could not in any ordinary sense be attributed to a reward for the employee’s services - for instance the use of a car for the private purposes of a member of the employee’s family or an interest-free loan to one of his relatives - and to restrict the operation of the section in the way suggested by Mr. Aaronson would, in my judgment, virtually deprive it of any operation at all in the case of benefits other than those provided to the employee himself. Speaking only for myself I do not in the case of this legislation, find the philosophical distinction between a ‘causa causans’ and a ‘causa sine qua non’ helpful. I see no reason why a benefit ‘derived’ from the employment (to use the words of the chapter title) necessarily has to be invested with an intention on the part of the employer to remunerate the employee for the performance of his duties. One is directed to see whether the benefit is provided by reason of the employment and in the context of these provisions that, in my judgment, involves no more than asking the question ‘what is it that enables the person concerned to enjoy the benefit?’ without the necessity for too sophisticated an analysis of the operative reasons why that person may have been prompted to apply for the benefit or to avail himself of it.”
“… in deciding whether or not a third party provides or makes available a benefit “by reason of the employment”, it is necessary to have regard to all the circumstances, including “the relationship, rights and expectations of the employer, the employee and the third party respectively”
“(4) The net book value of the cars in each year represents by far the greater part of the assets of CMS in its balance sheet: thus, by way of example, as at the year end31 March 2006 out of fixed and current assets totalling£141,398 :£112,194 comprised the net book value of the cars;£9,990 comprised the net book value of computer equipment;£7,153 comprised the net book value of fixtures and fittings; and£12,061 comprised current assets of debtors and cash. At that date there were current liabilities (creditors) of£62,447 , giving net assets totalling£78,951 financed by partners’ capital accounts in aggregate totalling that amount.”
“I agree with the respondents that the use of the word ‘benefit’ in the benefits code is an indicator that what is intended to be caught is something which benefits the employee and that there is no such ‘benefit’ if the employee has paid the market rate for the asset which is provided. It is true that the way that the benefit is calculated under the current provisions (taking into account the list price and the level of CO 2 emissions) reflects other policy considerations. But that cannot, in my judgment, affect the more fundamental point of whether there is a benefit to which those current provisions should be applied.”