Perry v. The Queen (September 26, 2016 – 2016 TCC 210, Boyle J.).
Précis: In 2005 and 2006 the taxpayer claimed large (as a proportion of his income) charitable donations to a charity that was de-registered in 2007. The Court found the taxpayer’s evidence unacceptable and self-contradictory. The receipts at issue were at odds with the taxpayer’s testimony and otherwise deficient. The appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The taxpayer claimed to have made charitable donations in 2005 and 2006:
 Mr. Perry said he made donations each year in part in cash or cheque and in part in‑kind. The cash portion was said to be about $5,000 in 2005, paid monthly by postdated cheques averaging $200. He added there was also cash of perhaps $1,500 he donated in 2004 that must have been deferred to his 2005 receipt; that would total less than $4,000. No cheques were produced and he did not contact his bank for copies.
 He testified he thought 2005 was mostly cash but the $8,415 receipt says nil cash and all in kind.
 Mr. Perry thought his 2006 donations were mostly in-kind donations. He claimed $9,130.
The Court concluded that the receipts were purchased by Mr. Perry from his accountant, Mr. Gudu, for 10% of their face value:
 It appears that the receipts were not attached to the paper returns he filed. What was attached was the invoice for his 2006 tax return preparation fee. The fee was $910. Beside the fee, in parentheses, it is written, “$9,130.00”. That is the exact amount of his charitable donations claimed in that year. It can be seen that the fee of $910 is within $3 of being 10% of these donations.
 This evidence, considered with whatever other evidence I had, leads me to conclude that it is more likely than not that Mr. Perry purchased his receipts from Mr. Gudu for 10% of the face amounts.
Moreover the receipts themselves were inconsistent with Mr. Perry’s evidence and otherwise deficient:
 The name of the charity on the receipts has two spelling dissimilarities to the charity’s name on its registration. These are minor and, in normal circumstances, might be overlooked. However, neither receipt includes any description of the in-kind property donated nor the name and address of the appraiser.
 The 2006 receipt is dated December 31, 2006, but lists an address that differs from any the charity had given CRA until later in 2007. The 2006 receipt has a single date shown for the donation, which is not what the Appellant testified happened.
 The 2006 receipt appears to show an all-cash donation, which is also not what the Appellant said happened. Neither receipt reflects that cash was given in 2004 and receipted in a later year.
The appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.