Khan v. The Queen (September 14, 2017 – 2017 TCC 171, Favreau J.).
Précis: Mr. Khan claimed charitable donations of $9,000 and $8,000 in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The Minister disallowed the donations and, in so doing, opened otherwise statute-barred years. All of the charities concerned had subsequently had their charitable status revoked by CRA either for issuing inadequate receipts or failure to keep proper books and records. The Court accepted the Minister’s position that the donations in question were not reliable and dismissed Mr. Khan’s appeal. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The Court simply did not find the evidence of Mr. Khan credible:
 Based on the evidence before me, I have come to the conclusion that the appellant claimed donations for amounts which he did not donate. Mr. Khan’s explanations are not credible for the following reasons:
(a) the huge discrepancy in the amounts donated in 2005 and 2006 and the years before 2004 and after 2006;
(b) the ratio of the alleged donations compared to his net income for the 2005 and 2006 years at a time when he was in financial difficulties as he was forced to change bank because it has recalled his line of credit;
(c) the lack of bank records from which I draw a negative inference as any such records would have helped the appellant to prove the amounts of his donations;
(d) the appellant’s inability to explain why he has chosen to donate to the three organizations and to provide information concerning the causes supported by these organizations; and
(e) the appellant’s inability to give the names of the persons who prepared and filed his tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years.
 The appellant has not shown on a balance of probabilities that he made the donations he claimed to have made.
 The appellant has certainly made a misrepresentation in his tax returns. He knew or ought to have known that the amounts of $9,000 and $8,000 were far in excess of any cash donations actually made. He certainly reviewed his 2006 tax return prepared by Mr. Nathaniel Okoroafor before signing it. He solely relied on the receipt provided by the Christ Healing Church without questioning the significant amount claimed as charitable donation. He was at the very least, neglectful, in signing a return with the knowledge that the receipt overstated the actual donation.
 In the circumstances, the Minister is right to reassess beyond the normal reassessment period pursuant to subsection 152(4) of the Act. The Minister has met his burden of proof as the appellant is not credible.
As a result the appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.