Tax Appeal Struck Out for Lack of Donative Intent
📌 In brief
The Tax Court of Canada dismissed a taxpayer's appeal because the taxpayer failed to prove that they intended to donate money for charity rather than to benefit financially.
⚖️ Legal holding
A taxpayer must demonstrate donative intent to avoid having their appeal struck out.
📖 Technical summary
The appeal was struck out due to the taxpayer's failure to demonstrate donative intent.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tax Court of Canada struck out the appeal of a taxpayer who participated in a donation program, finding that the taxpayer failed to demonstrate donative intent and thus abused the court's process.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Docket: 2022-75(IT)G BETWEEN: [NAME_1], Appellant, and HIS MAJESTY THE KING, Respondent . Motion determined by Written Submissions Before: The Honourable Justice David E. Graham Participants : For the Appellant: [redacted] Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years are struck without leave to amend. Costs in the appeal are awarded to the Respondent. Signed this 22nd day of May 2026. “David E. Graham” Graham J. Citation: 2026 TCC 93 Date: 20260522 Docket: 2022-75(IT)G BETWEEN: [NAME_1], Appellant, and HIS MAJESTY THE KING, Respondent.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT Graham J. [ 1 ] By order dated March 19, 2026, I gave eleven taxpayers who had participated in the [NAME_3] donation program (“[NAME_3]”) 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 [NAME_3] 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. A. Donative Intent [ 5 ] [NAME_1] has not satisfied me that his appeal raises any new facts or arguments that could overcome the donative intent issue. [NAME_1] simply argues that he believed he was helping others. He offers no explanation of how he expects to show that he was not expecting to profit from his purported donations. B. Other Arguments [ 6 ] [NAME_1] raises a number of other arguments. None of them is new. I will address them briefly. Scammed [ 7 ] Like many of the [NAME_3] taxpayers who have appeared before the Court, [NAME_1] asserts that he was scammed by the operators of [NAME_3]. While that is likely true, it does not change the fact that [NAME_1] had no donative intent. Personal Circumstances [ 8 ] [NAME_1] wants the chance to explain his personal circumstances to a trial judge. The question the Court has to decide is whether [NAME_1] had donative intent. His physical health, mental health and financial circumstances are irrelevant to that question. [ADDRESS] does not have the power to waive or reduce a person’s taxes because of their personal circumstances. Failure to Warn [ 9 ] [NAME_1] appears to argue that the CRA failed to warn taxpayers about [NAME_3]. As I stated in [NAME_4] v. The Queen , “the CRA’s actions in warning or failing to warn taxpayers about the [NAME_3] are irrelevant to determining the validity or correctness of the Appellant’s reassessments. Either the Appellant’s donations were valid or they were not. No warning or lack thereof will change this.” [1] [ADDRESS] [ 10 ] [NAME_1] asserts that it would be unfair to deprive him of his day in Court but he does not explain why other than that he wants the chance to make the above arguments. [NAME_1] does not address the concerns I set out in my Order concerning consistency, judicial economy or finality. [ 11 ] As I stated in my Order, the fact that [NAME_1] has not personally had a chance to make the same arguments about the same facts is far outweighed by the potential risks to the integrity of the judicial system of allowing his appeal to continue. C. Conclusion [ 12 ] Based on all of the foregoing, [NAME_1]’s appeal is struck without leave to amend. Costs are awarded to the Respondent. Signed this 22nd day of May 2026. “David E. Graham” Graham J. CITATION: 2026 TCC 93 COURT FILE NO.: 2022-75(IT)G STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_1] v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING DATE OF HEARING: Motion determined by Written Submissions
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice David E. Graham DATE OF
JUDGMENT: May 22, 2026 PARTICIPANTS: 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] 2022 TCC 31, at para. 22.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The appeal was struck out because the taxpayer failed to demonstrate donative intent.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the taxpayer's donations were genuine or made to benefit financially.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the appeal because the taxpayer did not provide new facts or arguments to overcome the issue of donative intent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Income Tax Act, section 152, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the taxpayer's failure to demonstrate donative intent.
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 they can demonstrate genuine donative intent to avoid having their appeal struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.