http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/109844/index.do
Mapish v. The Queen (May 12, 2015 – 2015 TCC 122, Masse D.J.).
Précis: Mr. Mapish claimed charitable tax credits for donations of $9,600 in 2007 and $11,600 in 2008 (roughly 25% of his income in each year). He alleged that the donations were made in cash to Revival Time Ministries International (“Revival”).
The Court found that the receipts he produced were not in accordance with the requirements of the Income Tax Act and did not accept his evidence of large cash donations. The appeal was dismissed, without costs, as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The facts of this case were not complex:
[4] The appellant is originally from former Zaire, in Africa. He testified that he is married with three children. His country of origin is [Translation] “poor” and often at [Translation] “war.” Since coming to Canada, he has always been committed to helping his compatriots who remained in Africa. He stated that he has always made charitable donations intended to benefit people in Africa. He therefore began to make donations to Revival, which allegedly issued receipts to him for income tax purposes. He stated that Revival was his church and that he attended church services. He stated that he made cash donations and occasionally donated clothes and similar items.
[5] In filing his income tax return for 2007, the appellant reported employment income of $40,458.02 (see Exhibit I-1). He also reported charitable donations of $9,600 made to Revival and filed a receipt for this amount (see Exhibit A-1). This is a significant amount compared to his gross income, representing approximately 25%.
[6] In filing his income tax return for 2008, the appellant reported employment income of $45,553.56 $ (see Exhibit I-2). He also reported charitable donations of $11,600 to Revival and filed a receipt for this amount (see Exhibit A-2). Again, this is a significant amount compared to his income for this taxation year, representing approximately 25%.
[7] The Minister assessed the appellant for the 2008 and 2009 taxation years on April 14, 2008, and April 9, 2009, respectively. The Minister allowed the charitable donations as reported. On January 25, 2010, the Minister reassessed him to disallow the $9,600 charitable donation tax credit in 2007 and the $11,600 charitable donation tax credit in 2008 claimed by the appellant.
The Court accepted the Crown’s argument that the receipts Mr. Mapish produced were deficient:
[18] In the case at bar, there are a number of inadequacies regarding the receipts for the taxation years in question:
(a) the name of the organization as recorded with the Minister is not the same as that shown on the receipt. The name recorded is “Revival Time Ministries International,” whereas the name shown on the receipt is “Revival Time Ministries;”
(b) the receipt for 2008 has an address stamped at the bottom of the receipt showing the recipient’s address as being 415 Aokdale, whereas the address appearing on the receipt header is 415 Oakdale. Thus, one must wonder what the recipient’s true address is;
(c) the receipt does not show the locality or place where the receipt was issued. As indicated in Sowah, supra, this requirement is a separate requirement from the address of the organization as recorded with the Minister. While we might presume that the address of the organization is the locality or place where the receipt was issued, this should not be left to presumption. It should be clear on the receipt from which place the receipt is issued, because the address of the organization may be different from the place where the receipt was issued. The organization in this case has Web sites in the United States and, therefore, it is likely that Revival has multiple branches across Canada and around the world;
(d) there are no dates on the receipts, only the year (2007 on Exhibit A-1, and 2008 on Exhibit A-2). The appellant submits that he made donations each month during the period in question and that the amounts varied from one month to the other. It seems strange to me that the appellant did not ask for a receipt each time he made a donation, given that those donations were for either $500, $800 or $900 each time. These alleged donations were significant compared to the appellant’s income. It is therefore surprising that the appellant neither asked for nor obtained a receipt each time he made a donation;
[19] These are requirements that were not met. All these requirements are mandatory. It is not a matter of fault, liability, good faith or bad faith, or even negligence. These are mandatory requirements of the Act and Regulations. Owing to these palpable and obvious inadequacies in the mandatory requirements, this appeal must be dismissed. The appellant is therefore not entitled to a charitable donation tax credit under subsection 118.1(2) of the Act.
The Court went on to reject Mr. Mapish’s evidence of large (in comparison to his annual income) cash donations:
[23] For his part, it is obvious that the appellant did not keep records of the donations he made in 2007 and 2008, even though the donations he claims to have made were significant amounts compared to the appellant’s income (approximately 25%). He stated that he donated money each week, sometimes $800 and sometimes $900. He put money in an envelope which he gave to Revival. He received a receipt at the end of the year and he relied on the receipt to establish the exact amount he donated. As the appellant stated [Translation]: “[T]hey are the ones who calculated the amounts I had donated because I know what I donated; sometimes $800, $500 here, $500 there, and so on. And sometimes $1, and that’s it. . . .” The appellant was unable to confirm the exact amounts he donated to the organization without relying on the receipts. The appellant provided the Agency with his bank account statements, but at the trial he stated that all these documents had been destroyed by a water leak at his residence. However, he could have obtained copies from the bank, which he did not do. Since the appellant reported having donated substantial cash amounts to Revival, I expected him to submit to the Court documents demonstrating the source of these funds. He stated that he withdrew money from his bank account to make donations to Revival. It seems likely to me that those bank records would have contained information either confirming or contradicting their testimony. The appellant failed to provide any cheque, any ATM withdrawal slip, any record of donations, or any donation envelope related to the alleged donations. He may have donated a certain amount, but the Court cannot determine exactly how much.
[24] The receipts in issue are the only evidence of donations made and said receipts were issued by an organization that was audited, after which it was determined that the organization’s records and accounting books were false. Aside from the receipts, no document or account statement was adduced to support the appellant’s claims. Since the appellant failed to provide any objective evidence to rebut the Minister’s assumptions that he did not make the cash donations, the appellant failed to meet his burden of proof of presenting evidence on a balance of probabilities. While it is possible that any cash amounts may have been donated, the evidence with respect to the donations and the exact amount of the donations is insufficient.
As a result the appeal was dismissed without costs (this was an informal procedure appeal).