Tax Appeal Struck for Repeating Same Arguments
📌 In brief
In this case, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed a taxpayer's appeal because the taxpayer kept making the same arguments that had already been rejected. The court found that the taxpayer's appeal was abusive and struck it without allowing any amendments.
⚖️ Legal holding
A taxpayer cannot raise the same stale arguments previously rejected by the court.
📖 Technical summary
The appeal was struck due to the lack of new facts or arguments.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tax Court of Canada struck the appeal of a taxpayer who participated in the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative donation program, finding that the taxpayer's arguments were stale and had been previously rejected by the court.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Docket: 2022-893(IT)I BETWEEN: [NAME_1], Appellant, and HIS [NAME_2] THE [NAME_2], Respondent . Motion determined by Written Submissions Before: The [NAME_3] : Agent for the Appellant: [redacted] Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years are struck without leave to amend. Signed this 26th day of May 2026. “[NAME_3]” [NAME_4] J. Citation: 2026 TCC 100 Date: 20260526 Docket: 2022-893(IT)I BETWEEN: [NAME_1], Appellant, and HIS [NAME_2] THE [NAME_2], Respondent.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT [NAME_4] J. [ 1 ] By order dated March 19, 2026, I gave eleven taxpayers who had participated in the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative donation program (“GLGI”) the chance to explain why their appeals should not be struck without leave to amend for abusing the Court’s process. [ 2 ] One of those taxpayers withdrew his appeal. One conceded the GLGI portion of his appeal. One did not respond by the deadline and, as a result, I have struck his appeal without leave to amend. [ 3 ] The remaining eight taxpayers all filed written submissions. None of them satisfied me that they would be raising new facts or new arguments that could somehow overcome what I described in my Order as the donative intent problem. Similarly, none of them satisfied me that their appeal involves some other issue over which the Court has jurisdiction. They simply made the same stale arguments that have failed in this Court time and again – arguments that it would be an abuse of this Court’s process to allow to proceed. [ 4 ] I will address the specific arguments raised by the Appellant, [NAME_1], below. [ 5 ] [NAME_1] argues that the government changed the law on donative intent in 2013 with retroactive effect and that, if not for that change, her purported donation to GLGI would have been valid. This is not a new argument. [ 6 ] Someone has clearly been telling GLGI participants that the only reason the scheme did not work is because the government changed the rules after the fact. I imagine that it is in the interest of whoever has spread that conspiracy theory that people believe it. [ 7 ] Like all good conspiracy theories, there is an element of truth to it. The government did change the law in respect of what are known as split-gifting arrangements. In particular, subsections 248(30) – (41) were added to the Income Tax Act . As is the case with many amendments, the change was made retroactive to the year that it was announced. However, contrary to the conspiracy theory, the changes did not add a new requirement that a donor must have donative intent. That requirement was already part of the law ( [NAME_7] v. The Queen [1] ). [ 8 ] The Respondent relies on these new provisions, but only as a final alternative argument. The Respondent relies first on donative intent, then on the taxpayer never having received the courseware from the trust because the trust did not exist and then on the program being a sham and then on the fair market value of the courseware. It is only if a GLGI taxpayer is successful on all of those issues that the Respondent turns to the new provisions. [ 9 ] Justice Pizzitelli did not have to address the new provisions in [NAME_8] v. The Queen [2] because he found against the taxpayer on the Respondent’s primary argument – donative intent. That is the argument that I have asked [NAME_1] to satisfy me that she can overcome. She has provided no facts or arguments that suggest she could. [ 10 ] Based on all of the foregoing, [NAME_1]’ appeal is struck without leave to amend. Signed this 26th day of May 2026. “[NAME_3]” [NAME_4] J. CITATION: 2026 TCC 100 COURT FILE NO.: 2022-893(IT)I STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_1] v. HIS [NAME_2] THE [NAME_2] DATE OF HEARING: Motion determined by Written Submissions
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: The [NAME_3] DATE OF
JUDGMENT: May 26, 2026 PARTICIPANTS: Agent for the Appellant: [redacted] Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: [redacted] n/a Firm: n/a For the Respondent: [redacted] Ottawa, Canada [1] 1991 CarswellNat 669 (FCA). [2] 2015 TCC 244.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The appeal was struck without leave to amend because the taxpayer's arguments were stale and had been previously rejected.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a taxpayer's appeal regarding donations made through the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative program.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike the appeal because the taxpayer's arguments were repetitive and had been previously rejected by the court.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Income Tax Act, specifically sections 248(30) - (41), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the taxpayer's arguments were stale and had been previously rejected by the court.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the taxpayer who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that they present new facts or arguments that have not been previously rejected by the court.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.