To classify a payment, case law has established that it is necessary to examine whether the payment is intended for the employer's convenience or the employee's enjoyment. In CA 545/59 Dan Cooperative Association Ltd. v. Tax Officer 5 Tel Aviv, P.D. 14 2089, it was established that it is necessary to examine whether the product or service was given to the employee to use for their enjoyment or for the employer's convenience.

Employer convenience means that the nature of the position requires the employee to need the product or service. In the case in question, it was established that things that do not add any personal enjoyment to the recipient or that add only insignificant enjoyment compared to their utilitarian purpose should not be taxed. The judgment established a dual test in which the employer's convenience and the employee's enjoyment are examined. When a payment is for the employer's convenience but the employee enjoys it, it is necessary to examine whether it is significant enjoyment or marginal and insignificant. The benefit must be examined objectively, taking into account the employee and their position