REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Appeal
heard on August 22, 2016 and decision rendered
orally from the bench on August 26, 2016 at Toronto, Ontario)
Boyle J.
[1]
These are my reasons for judgment in the Junior
Perry appeal heard earlier this week in Toronto in respect of his 2005 and 2006
charitable donations to PanAfrican Canadian Multicultural Center.
[2]
He testified that he made donations in cash and
kind in each year on the recommendation of a tax accountant, George someone,
who had been recommended to him by a friend.
[3]
The Minister assumed in his reply that “George”
was one George Gudu, and the Appellant did not make out any case that it was
not, though he professed that he did not recall George’s last name.
[4]
The charity was a registered charity in 2005 and
2006 and was deregistered in 2007.
[5]
Mr. Perry was a welder and, in 2006, earned
less than $60,000 as an employee.
[6]
The Appellant’s evidence was limited to his own
testimony and the two charitable receipts. His testimony was very limited. It
was at best vague, general and unclear. He appeared to change his version of
events as needed, as the evidence progressed. His version appears to be
inconsistent with the receipts in a number of respects.
[7]
Mr. Perry said he made donations each year
in part in cash or cheque and in part in‑kind. The cash portion was said
to be about $5,000 in 2005, paid monthly by postdated cheques averaging $200.
He added there was also cash of perhaps $1,500 he donated in 2004 that must
have been deferred to his 2005 receipt; that would total less than $4,000. No
cheques were produced and he did not contact his bank for copies.
[8]
He testified he thought 2005 was mostly cash but
the $8,415 receipt says nil cash and all in kind.
[9]
Mr. Perry thought his 2006 donations were
mostly in-kind donations. He claimed $9,130.
[10]
He continued to make his monthly postdated cheque
donation of $200 in 2006. His sole 2006 receipt is for $5,980. It suggests it
was all in cash and it says the full donation was made on a single day in
October.
[11]
There is no explanation given by Mr. Perry
for the additional $3,150 claimed in 2006. His 2006 return suggests there was
a donation in that amount to a different charity.
[12]
Mr. Perry had no idea if, how or by whom
his in-kind donations were appraised. He only knew he paid $5,000 at The Brick
for the furniture and appliance portion two or three years earlier. Even that
was not corroborated with a receipt or even an itemized listing.
[13]
I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities
with credible, consistent evidence that Mr. Perry made any donations to a
registered charity in 2005 or 2006. For this reason, the appeal must fail.
[14]
It appears that the receipts were not attached
to the paper returns he filed. What was attached was the invoice for his 2006
tax return preparation fee. The fee was $910. Beside the fee, in parentheses,
it is written, “$9,130.00”. That is the exact
amount of his charitable donations claimed in that year. It can be seen that the
fee of $910 is within $3 of being 10% of these donations.
[15]
This evidence, considered with whatever other
evidence I had, leads me to conclude that it is more likely than not that Mr. Perry
purchased his receipts from Mr. Gudu for 10% of the face amounts.
[16]
Further, the appeal must also fail because the
receipts are deficient in multiple respects and do not contain the information
required by the regulations.
[17]
The name of the charity on the receipts has two
spelling dissimilarities to the charity’s name on its registration. These are
minor and, in normal circumstances, might be overlooked. However, neither
receipt includes any description of the in-kind property donated nor the name
and address of the appraiser.
[18]
The 2006 receipt is dated December 31,
2006, but lists an address that differs from any the charity had given CRA
until later in 2007. The 2006 receipt has a single date shown for the donation,
which is not what the Appellant testified happened.
[19]
The 2006 receipt appears to show an all-cash
donation, which is also not what the Appellant said happened. Neither receipt
reflects that cash was given in 2004 and receipted in a later year.
[20]
This appeal is dismissed for both years.
Signed at Montreal,
Quebec, this 5th day of October 2016.
“Patrick Boyle”
Email this Content