In tax matters, it's not about how much you use an asset, it's about whether you could use it. The company car does not rest. Even if it is parked and you are sleeping, it continues to generate income in kind.
As we have been reporting on other occasions, one of the issues that causes the most headaches in tax reviews are the valuation of payments in kind, especially when it comes to vehicles that a company makes available to its staff. And no wonder: the line between the professional and the personnel is not always clear, and the interpretation made by the Tax Administration can clash with the worker’s perception of what is fair or reasonable.
The criterion reiterated by the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) and confirmed by the National Court is unequivocal: it is not necessary for the employee to make effective private use of the car for it to be understood that there is a remuneration in kind. It is sufficient that he/she has the real possibility of using it outside working hours, even if he/she does not do so.
Commercial manager using a company vehicle to perform his duties
Recently, the DGT in its binding consultation V0228/2025 analyzes the situation of a commercial manager who uses a company vehicle to perform his duties. This is a professional with a demanding schedule who, even on weekends, must travel for work purposes. The company, based on arithmetical logic, charges him 80% of the value of the vehicle as income in kind, on the basis that during that percentage of the annual time – excluding some 1,700 working hours according to the collective labor agreement – he has the car at his disposal.
The worker, however, disagrees. He argues that the vehicle is used exclusively for work purposes, that he himself has private cars for his personal life and that it is unreasonable to consider as income in kind the time when he is not even awake.
What is the legal position?
The key lies in articles 42.1 and 43.1 of the Personal Income Tax Law. These precepts establish that the free use of goods for private purposes is considered as income in kind, and that such income must be valued -in the case of vehicles- at a percentage of the market value or of the acquisition cost (20% per year in general terms, with possible reductions in the case of energy-efficient cars).
What is relevant is not how many kilometers are driven, nor whether the vehicle is used on weekends or not. What matters, from the tax point of view, is that the worker has free access to the use of the vehicle outside his working day, even if in practice he never uses it.
So, is it all the same?
Not exactly. The existence of other private vehicles, the nature of the position, the limitations imposed by the company on the use of the vehicle or even its location outside the worker’s home may be factors to consider. But none of them, by themselves, eliminates the possibility of remuneration in kind.
The DGT makes it clear: calculation systems based on the number of hours of use, discounts for sleeping hours or mileage estimates are not accepted. The valuation must be based on the possibility of private use, and not on its effective exercise.
What if 80% does not reflect reality?
In that case, it is up to the company to justify that this percentage is not adequate, proving that the actual availability for personal purposes is lower. The burden of proof, as in so many other tax matters, may end up falling on the taxpayer. And if there are discrepancies, it will be the Administration who will have the last word.
In short, having a company car is not only a benefit, it can also have relevant tax implications. Even if you do not use it in your personal life, if you can do so, you are already generating an income in kind. On this point, the criterion is consolidated and reiterated by the Administration and the courts: the determining factor is the possibility of private use, not its actual exercise.
In case of doubt, it is advisable to analyze case by case, document the restrictions on use imposed by the company, and assess with technical and legal criteria the percentage that really corresponds to be imputed as income in kind. Because, as we already know, in taxation, form can be as important as substance.
For more information, please consult with Tax consulting
If you found it interesting share it on social networks, thanks!
