Tax Court Rejects GLGI Donation Appeal Due to Donative Intent Issue

OUTCOME: Struck Out

Docket: 2022-1610(IT)G BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Appellant, and HIS [NAME] THE [NAME], Respondent . Motion determined by Written Submissions Before: The Honourable Justice David E. Graham Participants : For the Appellant: [redacted] Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 taxation years are struck without leave to amend. Costs in the appeal are awarded to the Respondent. Signed this 22nd day of May 2026. “[RESPONDENT]. [RESPONDENT]” [NAME] J. Citation: 2026 TCC 92 Date: 20260522 Docket: 2022-1610(IT)G BETWEEN: [NAME] [APPELLANT], Appellant, and HIS [NAME] THE [NAME], Respondent.

REASONS FOR [RESPONDENT]. [ 1 ] By order dated March 19, 2026, I gave eleven [NAME] who had participated in the [NAME[NAME] (“[NAME]”) 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 [NAME] withdrew his appeal. One conceded the [NAME] 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 [NAME] 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] [APPELLANT], below. A. Donative Intent [ 5 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] argues that he is a good person who cares about others in his community and that he has previously made donations to charities. He says he believed [NAME] was helping others. [NAME] [NAME] who have appeared before the Court have made these same arguments. They do not work. [ 6 ] Donative intent is determined on a donation-by-donation basis. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s general character and previous charitable gifts are irrelevant to the question of whether he had donative intent in respect of his purported [NAME] donations of approximately $85,000 from 2007 to 2013, just as his lack of donative intent in [NAME] would have been irrelevant to the validity of the $28 in legitimate gifts that the Reply indicates the Minister allowed in those years. [ 7 ] [NAME] [NAME] frequently tell the Court that they have previously made charitable donations. What these [NAME] fail to mention is that the charities that received those donations gave them receipts for the amount of cash they donated, not an amount three to eight times greater than that. They came away from those donations poorer, not richer. [ 8 ] In summary, Mr. [APPELLANT] has not satisfied me that his appeal raises any new facts or arguments that could overcome the donative intent issue. B. Other Arguments [ 9 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] raises a number of other arguments. None of them is new. I will address them briefly. Personal Circumstances [ 10 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] wants the chance to explain his personal circumstances to a trial judge. The question the Court has to decide is whether Mr. [APPELLANT] had donative intent. His physical health, age 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. Due Diligence [ 11 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] says that he knows little about tax, that he was referred to [NAME] by an accountant who appeared to him and his co-workers to be a very smart man and that he was not wilfully blind or grossly negligent. In other words, he says he was duly diligent. [ 12 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] has not asserted that the reassessments were issued beyond the normal reassessment period or that he was assessed gross negligence penalties.

Accordingly, his due diligence or lack thereof in deciding to participate in [NAME] is irrelevant. Failure to Warn [ 13 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] says that the CRA failed to warn [NAME] about [NAME]. As I stated in [NAME] v. The Queen , “the CRA’s actions in warning or failing to warn [NAME] about the [NAME] tax shelter 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] CRA Actions [ 14 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] says that the CRA took too long to process his objection. As I also stated in [NAME] v. The Queen , “[t]he Tax Court's role in an income tax appeal is to determine whether the assessment is valid and correct based on the relevant facts and the provisions of the Income Tax Act . The Minister's conduct during the audit or objection process is irrelevant to that determination. That conduct is not a ground upon which the Court can allow an appeal.” [2] [ADDRESS] [ 15 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] 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. He does not address the concerns I set out in my Order concerning consistency, judicial economy or finality. [ 16 ] As I stated in my Order, the fact that Mr. [APPELLANT] 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 [ 17 ] Based on all of the foregoing, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s appeal is struck without leave to amend. Costs are awarded to the Respondent. Signed this 22nd day of May 2026. “[RESPONDENT]” [NAME]. [NAME]: 2026 TCC 92 COURT FILE NO.: 2022-1610(IT)G STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] [APPELLANT] v. HIS [NAME] THE [NAME] 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. [2] 2022 TCC 31, at para. 13 [footnote omitted].