IO540, from what you have told us, something doesn't quite gel. What are the real facts of this case because, as I see it, there must be more to it if what you are saying is true. If you are saying that commonly accepted taxation law is not the case, then can you give us the situation that has led to this?
An asset "available" for use can easily be got round! One company for whom I worked had a strict clause in employment contracts that the company vans were not for private use; hence the operatives did not get taxed on the benefit in kind. They could have been driven for private use I suppose but the Inland Revenue (as they were then) were quite happy with our contracts. If an employee was cuaght out in a van after hours they were disciplined.
If the cost of private use of the asset is reimbursed to the company, then there is no benefit in kind.
Cheers
Whirls