Werner - payment in kind is when money is substituted BY a thing.
If, for instance, I do two hours work weeding your garden, and you pay me by doing two hours work painting my shed, then you have paid me in kind. so your understanding of the term is correct.
since the original posting has been made understandable (it is *not* about a tax-oriented issue at all, but about a perks issue that binds an employee to a company) it is safe to say that 'geldnah' is OK, and *not* comparable to *geldwert* as it is often used in German
this form of binding is used every day in business: if you buy something from me, and you have a problem with it, and I offer you a 'Gutschein' for your troubles, then you only have an advantage from this if you buy again from me - so your Gutschein is as good as money only if exchanged for goods at my store.
I don't think payment-in-kind is suitable
I don't think non-cash benefit is suitable, since this normally would imply a company car, extra holidays, this sort of thing
I've never encountered 'cash-like benefit', but it appears most suitable to my way of thinking (unless, of course, it is already widely used and accepted in financial circles with a different meaning, which would only result in clouding the issue)