My company offers a Cycle to Work scheme as one of the benefits. The scheme is essentially a tax saving tool which let's you buy a bicycle from your pre-tax salary. Technically the government-sanctioned scheme operators claim that at least 50% of the journeys with said bicycle have to be commuting for it to qualify. However, I don't think I've ever heard of this being policed or audited in any way. My impression is that most people and employers really don't take this requirement seriously and play a wink-wink-nudge-nudge game of just taking advantage of tax savings, and fingers crossed promises that yes, there'll be commuting involved with this bike.
Now, I live hundreds of miles away from my employers office and my in-person visits there a limited to taking the train down there once every couple months. I was hoping to buy a folding bike, which could be used for getting to and from train stations and then stowed on the train, but I don't think I could reasonably expect anyone to believe that I'll be ever truly commuting to work by cycling there.
A situation where de facto and de jure rules are different is not an uncommon one. Here, de jure you have to satisfy the 50% commute requirement but de facto it does not seem to be necessary. I suppose my question boils down to where on the spectrum between the two it lays and how much of a faux pas is it to make the difference between them obvious.