REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
Lyons J.
[1]
VLN Advanced Technologies Inc., the appellant,
appeals the reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income
Tax Act for the taxation year ending December 31, 2012. The appellant
claimed the amount totalling $453,323 (the “Amount”) as a scientific research
and experimental development (“SRED”) capital expenditure, as part of its
deductible SRED pool. The Amount represents the cost of the purchase, by the
appellant, of the integrated and automated Pure Pulse Waterjet System equipment
(the “System”) from Pratt and Whitney Military Aftermarket Services Inc.
(“Pratt”). It is undisputed that the Amount was incurred in 2012 and constitutes
a capital expenditure.
[2]
The Minister disallowed the Amount on the basis
it does not qualify as a SRED capital expenditure as it failed to satisfy the
conditions in subclause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III) of the Income Tax Act
(the “Subclause”).
[3]
All references to provisions that follow are to
the Income Tax Act.
I. Issues:
[4]
The issue is whether on incurring the Amount of
the capital expenditure, the appellant intended the System to be used for all
or substantially all of its operating time for the prosecution of SRED in
Canada? If so, it is fully deductible pursuant to paragraph 37(1)(b).
II. Facts:
[5]
Dr. Mohan Vijay, the director and chairman of
the appellant testified on its behalf. Dr. Vijay received a doctorate in
mechanical engineering from the University of Manitoba.
The appellant is engaged in the business
of manufacturing Pulse water jet nozzles, consulting and developing new
technologies. Its main business is manufacturing customized water jet devices
for industry specific applications.
[7]
Pratt, a U.S. resident company,is a multinational manufacturer, involved in
various lines of business worldwide including the aviation industry.
Agreements
[8]
On April 12, 2011, Pratt and the appellant
entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) and a Transition Services
Agreement (“TSA”).
[9]
Pursuant to the APA, the appellant sold to Pratt
its patent for coating removal and intellectual property related to
high-frequency forced pulse water technology. The appellant retained its
patents and intellectual property related to surface prepping, techniques using
coating particles as blasting particles, new coating techniques and
electro-discharge techniques. Related to the APA is the TSA.
[10]
Under the TSA, Pratt sold to the appellant the
System for $450,000 U.S. and the appellant was to provide to Pratt research and
development (“R&D”) and engineering services (involving design, manufacture
and testing) over three years for a specified number of hours at agreed upon
hourly rates with a total value of $450,000 U.S. (the “Services”). The purchase
price of the System would be offset and paid for by the provision of the
appellant’s Services to Pratt. The Services were to be given priority over
other work.
[11]
Pratt manufactured the System and around March
2, 2012 delivered it to the appellant in Ottawa. After some modification, it
was installed and became operational by September 2012. The System is a
duplicate of one that Pratt has installed in its Alabama plant.
[12]
The System sends pulses of water to remove
coatings or treat various materials and is unique in its capability to control
water jets and ability to navigate around objects while treating the objects
with water jets.
[13]
Dr. Vijay testified the System was purchased
from Pratt to permit the appellant to conduct R&D of pulsed water jet
technology to demonstrate its feasibility (for removing coatings) to Canadian
and international clients, including collaboration with the University of
Ottawa (“UO”), and government departments such as National Defence and the
National Research Council of Canada. The appellant offered to use the System to
conduct testing for Pratt.
[14]
From Pratt’s perspective, it viewed itself as
having secured, under the TSA, the appellant’s “… resources to keep innovating and trying additional stripping and cleaning methods on new and
different materials and coatings. Pratt & Whitney saw great value in VLN as
an R&D facility and has used VLN as such. Both parties viewed this
relationship as a smart partnership going forward; VLN to be the R&D hub
while P&W would commercialize and sell the technology and services related
to it. To my knowledge, VLN is by no means a commercial stripping house and any
work coming out of VLN is for R&D purposes only ‑ they test
new materials and the removal of coatings on such for potential end users.”
Further, the System “… is solely for the development of pure pulse applications
in support of the needs of P&W and for the development of other
applications with a view to future commercialisation [sic] of systems”
and the appellant is engaged in only R&D.
[15]
Whilst negotiating the TSA, the parties understood
that they would collaborate on many R&D projects to enhance productivity of
the waterjet technology with the appellant being obligated to work on projects
of relevance and interest to Pratt, initially providing the Services up to the
$450,000 U.S. agreed to and noting this funding would be finished before the
three-year period.
Dr. Vijay testified that the Services provided to Pratt in exchange for the
System were largely completed by the time the System was delivered.
[16]
In 2013, the appellant was retained by
Sellafield Ltd./UK Nuclear (“Sellafield”) to perform a feasibility study as to
the System’s utilization to decommission irradiated structures of nuclear power
plants.
[17]
The Minister denied the Amount claimed for the
System on the basis that the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions in the
Subclause because it purchased the System with the
intent to use it to perform non-SRED R&D to assist Pratt.
[18]
In addition to the Amount, the appellant’s SRED
claim for 2012 included four projects that were approved as SRED qualifying
activities (the “four approved projects”). In
re-examination, Dr. Vijay testified that the System was needed and used for
only one of the four approved projects, the Ultrasonics project.
[19]
Mr. Elkhodary, the Canada Revenue Agency financial
reviewer, testified that little or none of the SRED activities claimed by the
appellant in 2012 indicate that the System would be utilized for the four
approved projects; he could not form a conclusion that all or substantially all
of the operating time of the System would be used on the four approved
projects.
III. Parties’
positions:
[20]
The appellant’s position is that the Amount
qualifies as a SRED capital expenditure pursuant to Subclause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III)
because it intended to use the System during all or substantially all of its
operating life for SRED purposes and used the System for the prosecution of its
own SRED including its collaboration with the UO. The activities that the
System was used to perform were not commercial in nature plus it had received
approval for other SRED projects. The Services provided to Pratt, in
consideration for the System, were largely completed by the time the System was
in the appellant’s possession and such Services required little or no use of
the System.
[21]
The respondent’s position is that the activities must
meet the criterion in the SRED definition in subsection 248(1) and the Amount must
fall squarely within the specific conditions in the Subclause to qualify as a SRED
capital expenditure. The appellant failed to satisfy both. Specifically, at the time the Amount was incurred, the appellant did not intend to
use the System during all or substantially all of its operating time for the
prosecution of SRED carried on by it. Instead, the System was acquired to
provide the Services to Pratt and mostly used to provide services to others as
an R&D subcontract provider.
IV. Law:
[22]
Four provisions are relevant with the main focus on
the conditions in the Subclause. First, subsection 248(1) defines SRED as:
248(1)
…
“scientific research
and experimental development” means systematic
investigation or search that is carried out in a field of science or technology
by means of experiment or analysis and that is
(a) basic research,
namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge without a
specific practical application in view,
(b) applied research,
namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge with a
specific practical application in view, or
(c) experimental
development, namely, work undertaken for the purpose of achieving technological
advancement for the purpose of creating new, or improving existing, materials,
devices, products or processes, including incremental improvements thereto,
and, in applying
this definition in respect of a taxpayer, includes
(d) work undertaken by or
on behalf of the taxpayer with respect to engineering, design, operations
research, mathematical analysis, computer programming, data collection, testing
or psychological research, where the work is commensurate with the needs, and
directly in support, of work described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) that is
undertaken in Canada by or on behalf of the taxpayer,
but does not include
work with respect to
(e) market research or
sales promotion,
(f) quality control or
routine testing of materials, devices, products or processes,
(g) research in the social
sciences or the humanities,
(h) prospecting, exploring
or drilling for, or producing, minerals, petroleum or natural gas,
(i) the commercial
production of a new or improved material, device or product or the commercial
use of a new or improved process,
(j) style changes, or
(k) routine data collection; (activités de recherche scientifique et
de développement expérimental)
[23]
Significantly, subclause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III)
details the conditions in order to qualify as a deductible capital expenditure
in respect of SRED. It states:
Interpretation
37(8) In this section,
(a) references to
expenditures on or in respect of scientific research and experimental
development
…
(ii) where the references occur
other than in subsection 37(2), include only
(A) expenditures incurred by a
taxpayer in a taxation year (other than a taxation year for which the taxpayer
has elected under clause (B)), each of which is
…
(III) an expenditure of a capital
nature that at the time it was incurred was for the provision of premises,
facilities or equipment, where at that time it was intended
1. that it would be used during
all or substantially all of its operating time in its expected useful life for,
or
2. that all or substantially all
of its value would be consumed in,
the prosecution of
scientific research and experimental development in Canada, …
[24]
Next, subparagraph 37(1)(b)(i) allows for
the deduction of a capital expenditure used mostly for SRED. It reads:
37(1) Where a taxpayer carried on a business in Canada in a taxation
year, there may be deducted in computing the taxpayer’s income from the business
for the year such amount as the taxpayer claims not exceeding the amount, if
any, by which the total of
…
(b) the lesser of
(i) the total of all amounts each
of which is an expenditure of a capital nature made by the taxpayer (in respect
of property acquired that would be depreciable property of the taxpayer if this
section were not applicable in respect of the property, other than land or a
leasehold interest in land) in the year or in a preceding taxation year ending
after 1958 on scientific research and experimental development carried on in
Canada, directly undertaken by or on behalf of the taxpayer, and related to a
business of the taxpayer, and
(ii) the undepreciated capital
cost to the taxpayer of the property so acquired as of the end of the taxation
year (before making any deduction under this paragraph in computing the income
of the taxpayer for the taxation year),
(As of 2014, subclause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III) and subparagraph
37(1)(b)(i) have been repealed.)
[25]
Last, subsection 37(1.2) deems that for the
purposes of paragraph 37(1)(b), an expenditure by a taxpayer in respect
of property is deemed to have been made by the taxpayer at the time the
property was available for use by the taxpayer. It provides:
Deemed time of
capital expenditure
37(1.2) For the purposes of paragraph 37(1)(b), an expenditure
made by a taxpayer in respect of property shall be deemed not to have been made
before the property is considered to have become available for use by the
taxpayer.
[26]
In interpreting the SRED provisions, a “fair,
large, and liberal construction” is to be applied to give effect to the provisions’
policy goals of encouraging scientific research in Canada, as
highlighted by the appellant in its submissions.
[27]
Again, subsection 248(1)
details the criteria that make an activity SRED. subclause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III) specifies the
requisite conditions in order for a capital expenditure to qualify as SRED. The
relevant condition in this appeal is whether, at the
time the Amount was incurred, the appellant intended to use the System all or substantially all of its operating
time in its expected useful life for the prosecution of its SRED carried on in
Canada.
[28]
If it is determined to be a SRED capital
expenditure within the purview of the Subclause, subparagraph 37(1)(b)(i),
the charging provision, allows for the deduction of the capital expenditure
where a claimant carried on business in Canada, and SRED was carried on in
Canada and was directly undertaken by or on behalf of the claimant and is related
to the claimant’s business.
Intention to
use System
[29]
The appellant first argued that Dr. Vijay’s
testimony that the appellant’s intention, to use the System to perform the
appellant’s own SRED activities all or substantially all of the time, is credible
and should be accepted.
Actual Use of
System
[30]
Actual use of the System was demonstrated, the
appellant says, by a sufficient, helpful and reliable evidentiary basis that
corroborates its intention was exclusively for the performance of SRED; thus
satisfied the condition as to the use of the System all or
substantially all of the time for the prosecution of SRED.
[31]
Dr. Vijay is credible, however, principles established
in the jurisprudence, instruct that taxpayers’ statements alone are not
determinative of intention. Ultimately, it is a question of fact to be decided
with regard for all circumstances linked to the evidence in support of facts
presented at trial.[10] Subsequent conduct (actual use of the
System) assists in determining intention at a relevant
point in time and informs that intention.[11]
[32]
Dr. Vijay testified that the appellant received
parts of the System from Pratt in March 2012, assembled it by May 2012,
debugged it by August 2012, and, before using it for any research activities,
showcased it at a conference in November 2012.
[33]
He indicated that from September 2012 to July
2015, the appellant used the System for the following activities totalling
108.8 hours:
|
|
Activities in using the System
|
Hours
|
|
1
|
Demonstrate functionality of System at conference.
|
3
|
|
2
|
Debug System
and train personnel to use it.
|
14
|
|
3
|
UO Research
|
26
|
|
4
|
Feasibility
study for Sellafield
|
20
|
|
5
|
Feasibility
study for Toronto Transit Commission
|
10
|
|
6
|
Test nozzles - a key component in
proprietary hardware developed by the appellant in respect of other approved
SRED claims not under dispute.
|
35.8
|
[34]
As none of the activities were performed for the
purposes of earning income, the appellant said paragraph 13(27)(a)
should apply to exclude from the analysis of actual use the 17 hours spent on
the demonstration (activity 1) and the debugging and training (activity 2) for
the purposes of assessing the appellant’s intention. Of the remaining activities
(3 to 6), the appellant submitted that Dr. Vijay’s evidence that each of
them was for SRED was credible, clear and uncontradicted. From the inception of
its business to current activities, the appellant has engaged in SRED
activities because each of them were related to the appellant’s business, not
for commercial use. It has obtained patents through its
SRED work. One patent has been sold and eight other patent applications are
under review, one of which relates to the 40kHz compact nozzle tested using the
System.
[35]
In support of its argument, the appellant raised
four points. First, intention as to use of the System should be assessed at the
time that the appellant first used the System for the purpose of earning income.
Subsections 37(1.2), 248(19), and 13(27) govern because under paragraph 13(27)(a),
the System was deemed to be available for the appellant’s use when it was first
used for the purposes of earning income (“First point”).
[36]
Second, since its actual use of the System was
“related to” its business, it intended to use the System
all or substantially all for the prosecution of SRED
based on paragraph 37(1)(b). Essentially, an expenditure to acquire a
capital asset is deductible from business income if, inter alia, SRED
activities performed using the asset are related to the taxpayer’s business. The
phrase “related to” should be given a broad interpretation for the purposes of
determining whether actual use of the System was “related to” the appellant’s
business (“Second point”).
[37]
Third, because the Minister disallowed the Amount
as a capital SRED expenditure, in part because it applied the commercial use
exclusion, if the Court finds that the exclusion does not apply, the Court
should find that its actual use of the System was for SRED and therefore it intended
to use the System all or substantially all for the
prosecution of SRED.
[38]
The appellant noted that in Feedlot Health
Management Services Ltd. v Canada, the Court said “the commercial
use exclusion relates to the work performed and not the consideration paid.” The
mere fact, the appellant says, that it has occasionally received payments for
performing work using the System does not mean that the commercial use
exclusion applied (“Third point”). I fail to see how the proposition
applies in the present appeal because “consideration” referred to in Feedlot
Health comprise of payments made by the SRED expense claimant to a third
party for the third party’s assistance in the course of the claimant’s SRED
activities. No such payments were made in the present case; it received
payments from Pratt for the R&D Services provided to Pratt.
[39]
Fourth, for the purposes of determining whether
subclause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III) applied to characterize the System as a SRED
capital expenditure, the phrase “all or substantially all” in the Subclause represents
an elastic standard (“Fourth point”). I will return to the Fourth point later
in these reasons. (Collectively, the First, Second, Third and Fourth points
will be referred to as the “four points”).
[40]
After applying the four points, the appellant
contends its actual use of the System from November 2012 to July 2015 supports
its stance it is to be fully for the prosecution of SRED and underscored
that intention should be assessed at the time that the appellant first used the
System for the purposes of earning income.
[41]
For the reasons that follow, and respectfully, I
disagree with its stance and the time it says when intention is to be assessed.
Intention as
to the use of the System assessed when the Amount was incurred
[42]
In the First point, the appellant suggests that
determining intention occurs when the System was first used by the appellant
for the purpose of earning income. It reasons, under subsection 37(1.2), an expenditure
by a taxpayer in respect of property is deemed to be made when the property is
considered to have become available for use by the taxpayer. Subsection 248(19)
and paragraph 13(27)(a), in turn, provide that property acquired by a
taxpayer is deemed to become available for use by the taxpayer at the time the
property is first used by the taxpayer for the purpose of earning income.
[43]
Focussing on when the System was first used for
the purpose of earning income misconstrues, in my opinion, the conditions in subclause
37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III). The language is clear that the timing of the
intention (as to use of the System) is at the time the Amount was incurred, not
as suggested by the appellant. Again, the relevant part of the Subclause reads:
“an
expenditure of a capital nature that at the time it was incurred was for
the provision of … equipment, where at that time it was intended … that
it would be used during all or substantially all of its operating time in its
expected useful life for … the prosecution of scientific research and
experimental development in Canada,” [emphasis added].
[44]
Nor did the appellant elaborate on how it
determined what particular use of the System was for the purposes of earning
income and what use was not. Debugging the System, which the appellant viewed
as not for the purposes of earning income, from my perspective was as much of a
profit-earning activity as testing a nozzle. Both were necessary for the
development of patents that could potentially be sold and neither guaranteed
that such patents would be successfully developed.
Use of System “related to” the appellant’s business
[45]
With respect to the Second point, the term
“related to” is contained in paragraph 37(1)(b), not in the Subclause.
Paragraph 37(1)(b), the charging provision, permits the deduction of
capital expenditures for SRED purposes only after such expenditures have
been determined to be a SRED capital expenditure congruent with the conditions
in the Subclause.
Commercial
[46]
As to the Third point, the appellant’s analysis
is unclear in its application. If the commercial use exclusion does not apply,
it simply means that actual uses of the System are not excluded as SRED
activities. The inapplicability of an exclusion to a definition does not, on
its own, mean that the SRED definition is satisfied. The onus remains on the
appellant to demonstrate that on a balance of probabilities, actual uses of the
System were in fact SRED activities. Except for referring to successfully
claiming other SRED projects in its submissions, Dr. Vijay’s testimony
failed to clearly, if at all, establish why the activities that the System was
being used for constitutes SRED, what amounted to the “uncertainty” in the
activities for SRED purposes and what scientific methodology was being applied.
[47]
In part, the appellant
argued that the activities that the System was used to perform were
non-commercial. However, the fact an activity is non-commercial does not mean
it is SRED. The emphasis on commerciality is misplaced. The application of the
relevant provisions to determine if the activities constitute SRED is the
appropriate test.
[48]
Before turning to the Fourth point, I will
address activities 3, 4 and 5 and the use of the System set out in paragraph 33
of these reasons.
i) University of Ottawa research
[49]
Admittedly, the System was beneficial to and facilitated
UO research personnel (three graduate students and a research assistant) in the
performance of testing, research and experimentation in working on two student
projects at the Cold Spray Laboratory as confirmed by the UO in noting “the
student research work has been made possible with the help of VLN staff who
have helped the students conduct their experiments using R&D PWJ equipment
at VLN”. However, the fact that UO personnel
collaborated with the appellant on tasks involving the System and the appellant’s
ability to utilize data and findings, does not alter the fact that the research
represented the activities of UO researchers on its projects. I find these
activities do not amount to the System being used for the appellant’s SRED.
ii) Sellafield
feasibility study
[50]
The feasibility study activities were conducted to
determine whether the System could be applied to Sellafield’s requirements. This
was at the behest of, and paid for by, the third party. Dr. Vijay acknowledged
that the appellant received $60,000 for the work performed though stated this
was insufficient to realize a profit. The respondent entered into evidence a
letter from Sellafield to the appellant that states Sellafield would own any intellectual
property produced by the Sellafield work on the System.[17] Dr. Vijay
disagreed.
iii)
Toronto Transit Commission feasibility study
[51]
A feasibility study was the activity the
appellant engaged in for the Toronto Transit Commission regarding the use of
the System to treat concrete tunnels. The appellant said it did not receive any
compensation for the work, the data produced from the work was valuable to it
and the work performed involved uncertainty because it required testing on
concrete materials that the appellant was unfamiliar with.
[52]
The explanations during the hearing as to the
uncertainty criteria for SRED purposes for each feasibility study were at best
obtuse. Little if any testimony was provided as to the scientific methodology
that was being pursued to show the use of the System for SRED purposes for
either feasibility study. I find the
appellant did not meet the uncertainty criterion for determining whether an
activity constitutes SRED according to subsection 248(1) and the principles in Northwest Hydraulic.[19]
All or Substantially All
[53]
As to the Fourth point, the
appellant cited Reluxicorp v Canada for the proposition that the strict 90% or more utilization
standard used by the Canada Revenue Agency has no legal basis and other cases have
accepted rates as low as 76% in satisfaction of the “all or substantially all”
standard.
Even if the Court finds that not all of the documented time with respect to
actual use of the System was related to SRED and this deficiency is greater
than 10% of the total time incurred, the standard is “elastic” and the
application of which must be left to the discretion of the trial judge based on
the circumstances, which in this case, warrant a flexible approach.
[54]
When applying the definition of “all or
substantially all” to this case, the 90% threshold for System given its 108.8
hours of operating time is 97.9 hours.[22]
Even subtracting the clearly non-SRED activities of debugging, internal
training, and showcasing, the total hours that result are below 97.9 hours.
Removing the use of the System for third parties (such as Sellafield) reduces
the percentage of activities on the System for SRED around 36%. Clearly, this
is well short of what would be considered “all or substantially all” even with
an elastic standard and the appellant fails to meet this condition.
[55]
The evidence as to the actual use of the System undermines
the stated intent. Little or none of the operating time of the System,
specified in the appellant’s utilization records, support the contention that
the appellant’s SRED activities were conducted on the System.[23] I find that the
lack of use of the System for SRED is reflective of a lack of intention of the
appellant at the time the Amount was incurred to use the System for all or
substantially all of its operating time for the prosecution of SRED activities of
the appellant as noted by the respondent.
Basis of assessment factually flawed
[56]
Next, the appellant argued the basis of assessment
was factually flawed. The Amount was disallowed, in part, because the Minister
concluded that the appellant purchased the System from Pratt in order to use it
to perform non‑SRED R&D Services. However, the appellant says the
Minister did not and could not have considered how the appellant actually used
the System nor were there any assumptions in the Reply as to the actual use of
the System. The appellant submits that tangentially the Minister did consider
in one assumption that the Services were “to be conducted on the” System, but there
is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that all Services were fully performed
for Pratt by October 2011, before receiving the System from Pratt in March
2012, therefore demolished that assumption.
[57]
On the contrary, the Reply reveals assumptions
were made regarding the appellant’s actual use of the System. Specifically, the
appellant used the System to provide engineering and R&D services to Pratt,
the appellant agreed to perform the Services to Pratt pursuant to the TSA, which
were to be conducted on the System, and subsequent to entering the TSA, Pratt
utilized the appellant’s expertise in operating the System for Pratt’s own
engineering and R&D work.
Significantly, except for Dr. Vijay’s testimony that the Services were not
performed using the System, he confirmed that this was what had transpired.
Generation of
information is scientific advancement?
[58]
The appellant’s final argument is that the
generation of information using the System contributed to scientific
advancement and therefore constituted SRED activities. It referred to subsection
248(1) which provides that for an activity to be SRED, it must be for advancing
scientific knowledge or achieving technological advancements and then referred
to the CRA’s internal interpretive guide that states that scientific advancement includes the generation of
information or the discovery of knowledge that advances the understanding of
scientific relations or technology.
[59]
Except for demonstration, debugging and training
purposes, the appellant submits its actual uses of the System were all tied to
the generation of information that advances the understanding of scientific
relations or technology. Such information was essential in furthering its
mission to develop innovative technology or new uses of existing technology.
Therefore, the actual use of the System was for SRED, thus at all times it intended
to use the System all or substantially all for the
prosecution of SRED.
[60]
The appellant’s argument is an
oversimplification. Since “SRED” is a defined term in subsection 248(1), for
actual uses of the System to constitute SRED, and therefore evidence of the
appellant’s intention to use the System for SRED, there must be, amongst other
things, a “Systematic investigation or search”. No evidence was proffered to
show that the System was used in a systematic way for a particular purpose.
VI. Conclusion
[61]
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that on incurring
the Amount of the expenditure in 2012, the appellant did not intend to use (nor
actually use) the System for all or substantially all of its operating time
for the prosecution of the appellant’s SRED activities. Consequently, it failed
to satisfy the statutory conditions set out in subclause 37(8)(a)(ii)(A)(III)
and subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act.
[62]
The appeal is dismissed.
[63]
Costs are awarded to the respondent at Tariff.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 15th day of February 2018.
“K. Lyons”
Email this Content