Taxpayer Loses Appeal for Repeatedly Making Stale Arguments

Docket: 2021-3156(IT)G BETWEEN: [NAME_1], Appellant, and HIS [NAME_3] THE [NAME_4], Respondent . Motion determined by Written Submissions Before: The [NAME_5] : For the Appellant: [redacted] Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013 taxation years are struck without leave to amend. Costs in the appeals are awarded to the Respondent. Signed this 18th day of June 2026. “[NAME_5]” [NAME_5] J. Citation: 2026 TCC 99 Date: 20260618 Docket: 2021-3156(IT)G BETWEEN: [NAME_1], Appellant, and HIS [NAME_3] THE [NAME_4], Respondent.

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT [NAME_5] J. [ 1 ] By order dated March 19, 2026, I gave eleven taxpayers who had participated in the [NAME_7] donation program (“[NAME_7]”) 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_7] 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]’s submissions do not raise any new facts or arguments that could overcome the donative intent issue. She simply states that she thought the program was helping people in the third world. She offers no explanation of how she expects to show that she was not going to profit from her purported donations. [ 6 ] In summary, [NAME_8] has not satisfied me that her appeal raises any new facts or arguments that could overcome the donative intent issue. B. Other Arguments [ 7 ] [NAME_1] raises a number of other arguments. None of them is new. I will address them briefly. Ability to Pay [ 8 ] [NAME_1] says that she does not have the ability to pay the amount she has been reassessed. She wants the chance to explain her financial circumstances to a trial judge. [ 9 ] The question the Court has to decide is whether [NAME_1] had donative intent. Her financial circumstances are irrelevant to that question. [ADDRESS] does not have the power to waive or reduce a person’s taxes because they cannot afford to pay. Due Diligence [ 10 ] [NAME_1] submits she thought that [NAME_7] was a reputable charitable organization, that the CRA accepted the charity for registration and that she did not think she was doing anything wrong. In other words, she says she was duly diligent. [ 11 ] [NAME_1] has not asserted that the reassessments were issued beyond the normal reassessment period or that she was assessed gross negligence penalties.

Accordingly, her due diligence or lack thereof in deciding to participate in [NAME_7] is irrelevant. Scammed [ 12 ] Like many of the [NAME_7] taxpayers who have appeared before the Court, [NAME_1] asserts that she was scammed by the operators of [NAME_7]. While that is likely true, it does not change the fact that [NAME_1] had no donative intent. [NAME_7] [ 13 ] In my Order, I stated that it appeared that [NAME_1] may also have been involved in a different charitable donation scheme called the [NAME_7]. I pointed out that her notice of appeal made no reference to that scheme. I advised her that, unless she told me otherwise, I would assume that that program was not in issue in her appeal. [NAME_1]’s submissions did not refer to the [NAME_7]. As a result, I have assumed it is not something she wants to dispute. D. Conclusion [ 14 ] Based on all of the foregoing, [NAME_1]’s appeal is struck without leave to amend. Costs are awarded to the Respondent. Signed this 18th day of June 2026. “[NAME_5]” [NAME_5] J. CITATION: 2026 TCC 99 COURT FILE NO.: 2021-3156(IT)G STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_1] v. HIS [NAME_3] THE [NAME_4] DATE OF HEARING: Motion determined by Written Submissions

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT BY: The [NAME_5] DATE OF

JUDGMENT: June 18, 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