An employer installed in an employee's vehicle a GPS based system by which one can differentiate between private drives of the employee and work related drives and sought to obligate the employee only for the part of the vehicle value related to the private drives.
The Court held that any income of the employee, whether in cash or in cash value, is subject to tax. The tax regulations for calculation of the value of the vehicle given to an employee, which the Court held to be not unreasonable, set in a simplistic manner how the value of the vehicle and one cannot prove real use that is different from the method of calculation in the regulations. Additionally, the Court held that the system installed requires choosing between a work related or private drive and is thus subject to the discretion of the employee and the managers and thus cannot be deemed reliable.