Hello all, I am currently in promising contract negotiations with a new AG. Since my new job is about 90 km (simple journey) away from my place of residence, one of my conditions is the position of a company car. I have now read into the topictile already. However, it is not clear to me yet. I would like to turn to the following example. a) My desired gross wage is 4.500 p/M b) List price of the company car 20,000 EUR c) Distance to the Work (simple journey) 90 km To calculate the net wage there are two possibilities:a) The “money value advantage of travel costs to work” is NOT taxed by the AG.Invoice: List price x 0.03 % x km = 20,000 x 0.03 % x 90 km = 540 EUR plus the money value Vortel des Firmenwagen = 20,000 * 1 % = 200 EUR => The gross wage to be taxed is then 5,240 EUR ( 4,500 + 540 + 200) => Net comes out then 2,270,86 EUR) The “money value advantage of travel costs to work” is issued by the AG. invoice: List price x 0.03 % x km = 20,000 x 0.03 % x 90 km = 540 EUR Minus Paschalization ceiling (= what the AN can sell in the context of its tax explanation about the advertising costs) = 0.3 €/km * 90 km * 15 days = 405 = 135 EUR must “Only” be taxed by the AN plus the monetary values of the company car = 20,000 * 1 % = 200 EUR => The gross wage to be taxed is then 4,835 EUR ( 4,500 + 135 + 200) => Net comes out then 2,482,77 EUR Conclusion: You can see deutl (b) for the AN as clearly better than variant a). What is not quite clear to me, however, why variant b) should also be better for the AG ? This must pay the travel costs for the work path in the amount of 405 EUR plus the tax on the 405 EUR (i.e. 405 * 15% = 60.75 EUR). In total about 465 EUR. In variant a) does this pay all the AN ? I hope you could understand where my problem hangs. According to literature, variant b) is both for the AG as well as for the Au ch the AN better than variant A) In advance thank you for your help