http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/66564/index.do 
Dhillon at al. v. The Queen[1] (January 23, 2014) involved appeals by a husband and wife heard together. The Crown conceded the wife’s appeal involving child care expenses (other than in 2006) and gross negligence penalties so the reported decision turns on the claim by husband and wife for charitable tax credits and the wife’s claim for child care expenses in 2006:
[3] The issues at the hearing of these appeals were:
(a) Whether the Appellants made charitable donations in the following amounts to the following charities:
| |
Jaswinder Dhillon |
Ravinderjit Dhillon |
Charity |
| 2004 |
$9,500 |
$5,004 |
Whit-Tee Youth Shelter Inc. |
| 2005 |
14,500 |
3,500 |
Whit-Tee Youth Shelter Inc. |
| 2006 |
5,100 |
|
Whit-Tee Youth Shelter Inc. |
| 2006 |
5,005 |
1,855 |
New Hope for Africa |
(b) In the alternative, whether the receipts for the alleged charitable donations satisfied the requirements of section 118.1 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) and sections 3500 and 3501 of the Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations”); and
(c) Whether Ravinderjit Dhillon paid child care expenses of $4,000 in 2006.
The court rejected the evidence of the Appellants with respect to the alleged charitable donations:
[16] It is my view that the Appellants have not given any credible evidence to demonstrate that they made charitable donations to Whit-Tee or New Hope. The bank records (exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3) showed that the Appellants withdrew cash from their joint bank account or their parents’ bank account. There was no documentary evidence to connect the withdrawal of the cash with the alleged charitable donations. Although Mr. Dhillon stated that he kept personal records of his cash donations in a book, he did not bring that book to court with him. In addition, I find it difficult to believe that the Appellants would give $44,464 in cash over a three year period to people whose names they did not know and not receive a receipt for the cash at the time it was given.
[17] I find that Mr. Dhillon was not credible. It was his evidence that he learned about Whit-Tee from a salesman at a Mercedes Benz dealership. He didn’t know the salesman’s name. He allegedly attended at Whit-Tee’s office on Weston Road in 2004 and 2005; but, records showed that Whit-Tee did not have an office on Weston Road until August 11, 2005. He allegedly went to Whit-Tee’s office on Millcreek Road in 2006. Records showed that Whit-Tee never had an office on Millcreek Road (see exhibit R-27). He said that prior to making his donations, he looked into Whit-Tee and New Hope to ascertain the programs they carried on to achieve their charitable purposes. His description of the programs carried on by Whit-Tee and New Hope was vague but the testimony of Neal Swietlinski and documents tendered by the Respondent proved that even these vague descriptions were incorrect.
…
[20] I also find that Ravenderjit Dhillon was not credible. At the hearing she claimed to have donated $5,004 to Whit-Tee in 2004. However, the Respondent presented documents which showed that on April 6, 2005, the CRA requested the official receipt for the charitable donation claimed by Ravinderjit Dhillon in her 2004 income tax return. This request was made prior to assessment and was sent to Evelyn Serwaah because her e-file agent number had been used to file the return. In response, a receipt was sent to the CRA which showed the charity to be Panafrican Canadian Multicultural Centre (“Panafrican”) and the amount of the donation was $5,004. Neither Appellant knew about the enquiry made by the CRA or about the receipt for Panafrican.
Similarly, the court rejected Mrs. Dhillon’s evidence of child care expenses allegedly incurred by her in 2006 for her 15 year old son:
[27] I find it implausible that Mrs. Dhillon hired a baby sitter to be with her son for one hour and forty-five minutes each school day. When asked why her son required a baby sitter in the mornings, Mrs. Dhillon’s response was that he was not 16. I also do not believe that Ms. Duncan Williams or any baby sitter would work for 32 weeks in a year and not receive any pay until December 30th of the year.
[28] The letter from SDW could have been typed at any date. There was no opportunity to hear from Ms. Duncan Williams and test any of the statements she made in the letter. I have given no weight to the letter.
[29] I find that Ravinderjit Dhillon has not shown that she incurred child care expenses in 2006. For this reason, Ravinderjit Dhillon’s claim for child care expenses of $4,000 in her 2006 taxation year is dismissed.
As a result Mr. Dhillon’s appeal was dismissed and Mrs. Dhillon’s appeal was dismissed except to the extent that the Crown conceded child care expenses for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 taxation years and gross negligence penalties for the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years.
[1] 2014 TCC 25.
<