http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/181420/index.do
Purba v. The Queen (October 6, 2016 – 2016 TCC 218, Favreau J.).
Précis: The taxpayer claimed cash charitable donations of roughly $10,000 in 2005 (approximately 25% of his after-tax income) to Christ Apostolic Church International Miracle Centre (“Miracle”) (he also claimed a donation of $21 to another charity). The Court found that the evidence presented by the taxpayer was unreliable and dismissed his appeal. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: This was yet another case where the Tax Court found that the evidence of cash charitable donations was unacceptable:
[18] The evidence presented by the appellant fell short of showing that he made the alleged donations to Miracle. His testimony was vague and unreliable. It is as if he had no connection with the charitable organization. He did not know from where the organization operated or how the money given, was spent for charitable purposes except in very general terms. He stated that he was introduced to Miracle by a person who was renting a basement in the neighbourhood in 2004 while he was suffering from depression. The name of that person was not disclosed nor was called as a witness to corroborate the evidence.
[19] The appellant’s testimony was particularly deficient because he could not remember the exact amounts given on specific dates and the nature of the church’s programs towards which his cash donations were applied.
[20] The letter dated September 25, 2006 from Miracle provided a detailed breakdown on how the donations were made by the appellant in 2005. The programs that were financed by the appellant were as follows:
|
- tithes
- offering
- building funds
- special donations
|
3,730.00
1,270.00
5,000.00
200.00
|
17
44
20
2
|
219.41
28.86
250.00
100.00
|
[21] The information provided by the above-mentioned letter cannot be relied upon for two reasons:
(a) the charity number appearing on the letterhead of Miracle is different from the charity number appearing on the receipt issued to the appellant; and
(b) the financial secretary of Miracle who signed the letter was not called as a witness to explain how the information was gathered and why the charity numbers of the organization appearing on the documents were different.
[22] The banking documents submitted by the appellant are not useful because no reconciliation can be made between the amounts withdrawn from his bank account and the cash donations he made.
[23] In analyzing the appellant’s ability to make the alleged cash donations, I am led to believe that the amounts are substantial in comparison to his after-tax disposable income for the 2005 taxation year. The cash donations of $10,200 represented more than 25% of his after-tax disposable income for that year.
[24] The appellant also failed to establish that he received financial support from other family members living with him or that he made withdrawals on his TD line of credit to make the alleged cash donations.
[25] For all the above reasons, I find that the appellant has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he made the donations at issue.
There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.