Mariano v. The Queen

Mariano v. The Queen
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2015-11-23
Neutral citation
2015 TCC 244
File numbers
2009-3506(IT)G, 2009-3516(IT)G
Judges and Taxing Officers
Frank J. Pizzitelli
Subjects
Income Tax Act
Decision Content
Docket: 2009-3506(IT)G
BETWEEN:
JUANITA MARIANO,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal of Douglas Moshurchak (2009-3516(IT)G) on April 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario, May 8 and 9, 2015 at Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, June 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, September 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2015 at Vancouver, British Columbia
By: The Honourable Justice F.J. Pizzitelli
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Howard W. Winkler
Rahul Shastri
Counsel for the Respondent:
Gordon Bourgard
Lynn Burch
Matthew Turnell
Zachary Froese
Selena Sit
AMENDED JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2005 taxation year is dismissed, with costs to the Respondent. The parties shall have 30 days from the date of this Judgment to make submissions as to costs if they are not satisfied with the above order as to costs.
This Amended Judgment and Amended Reason for Judgment are issued in substitution of the Judgment and Reasons for Judgment dated October 19, 2015 due to the omission of names of two counsel.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of November 2015.
“F.J. Pizzitelli”
Pizzitelli J.
Docket: 2009-3516(IT)G
BETWEEN:
DOUGLAS MOSHURCHAK,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal of Juanita Mariano (2009-3506(IT)G) Appeals heard on April 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario, May 8 and 9, 2015 at Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, June 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, September 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2015 at Vancouver, British Columbia
By: The Honourable Justice F.J. Pizzitelli
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Howard W. Winkler
Rahul Shastri
Counsel for the Respondent:
Gordon Bourgard
Lynn Burch
Matthew Turnell
Zachary Froese
Selena Sit
AMENDED JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 2004 and 2005 taxation years is dismissed, with costs to the Respondent. The parties shall have 30 days from the date of this Judgment to make submissions as to costs if they are not satisfied with the above order as to costs.
This Amended Judgment and Amended Reason for Judgment are issued in substitution of the Judgment and Reasons for Judgment dated October 19, 2015 due to the omission of names of two counsel.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of November 2015.
“F.J. Pizzitelli”
Pizzitelli J.
Citation: 2015 TCC 244
Date: 20151123
Docket: 2009-3506(IT)G
BETWEEN:
JUANITA MARIANO,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent;
Docket: 2009-3516(IT)G
AND BETWEEN:
DOUGLAS MOSHURCHAK,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Pizzitelli J.
[1] These cases were heard at the same time and on common evidence.
[2] The Appellants appeal reassessments from the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) denying them charitable tax credits pursuant to section 118.1 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). Specifically, the Appellant, Douglas Moshurchak, was denied recognition of charitable gifts claimed for 2004 totalling $57,004, and for 2005 totalling $928,052. The said Appellant claimed a cash donation of $14,250 and an in‑kind donation of $42,754 for 2004, and a cash donation of $116,000 and an in‑kind donation of $812,051 for 2005. For 2006, the said Appellant carried over unused deductions, after transferring some to his spouse, which were also denied. The Appellant, Juanita Mariano, was denied recognition of charitable gifts totalling $45,044 for 2005, consisting of a cash donation of $7500 and an in‑kind donation of $37,544.
I. The Legal Issues [3] The Respondent has identified the 5 legal issues related to determining the issue of whether the Appellants were properly denied their charitable contributions, namely;
1. Did the Appellants make any ‘gifts’ to Millenium and CCA [the charities later defined] within the meaning of section 118.1? The Respondent says this involves determining whether the Appellants had the “donative intent” to do so, as well as whether a gift was actually made having regard to the other requisite elements of a gift.
2. Is the Global Learning Trust (2004) a valid trust at law? The Respondent challenges the validity of the Trust due to to its failure to have “certainties” present or due to the non-exercise of unassignable duties by its Trustee.
3. Is the GLGI Program and all the transactional steps involved in it a “sham”?
4. If 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and 3 in the negative, then was the fair market value of the licenses donated what the Appellants claimed?; and if so,
5. Do subsections 248(30) to (32) apply so as to reduce the eligible amounts of the gifts to Nil?
[4] The Appellants take the position that the only real issue in dispute is the fair market value of the gift in kind of licences which, they argue, their expert witness report confirms is higher than the value of the tax receipts claimed by all the Appellants; save and except that it concedes that the value for the Appellant, Douglas Moshurchak, for its 2005 year was only $423,057 and not the $812,051 claimed by him for the year, while asks that the value of the licences be valued at $52,724 for 2004, instead of the lower amount of $42,754 claimed. For Mariano, the value sought is $42,682 instead of the lower amount of $37,544 actually claimed. Let me just say, bluntly, that I will not allow any increase in the charitable donation over the amount of the charitable tax receipt in any event as it is trite law that a claim must be based on the issued charitable receipt.
[5] I intend to review and analyse the above issues in dispute after a brief review of the relevant facts and description of the donation program involved.
II. Background facts and Description of Donation Program [6] The donation program known as the Global Learning Gift Initiative (the “Program”) involved an offshore entity, Phoenix Learning Corporation (“Phoenix”), which was a Bahamian corporation, acquiring software licenses consisting of 6 different courseware titles, at nominal value, ranging from 13.3 cents per licence to 26.7 cents per licence, from a Florida corporation, Infosource Inc. (“Infosource”), and in turn, gifting most of such licenses to a Canadian trust, Global Learning Trust 2004 (the “Trust”), and directly or indirectly selling the balance to such Trust in order to fund its purchase of licences from Phoenix. The Trust was settled by a Mr. Morris, a Bahamian resident and expat Canadian under the laws of Ontario and of which Global Learning Trust Services Inc., an Ontario corporation, was the appointed trustee (“Trustee”). The Trust then distributed them to the participants, like the Appellants, who, after submitting a predetermined set of documents described later, were accepted as capital beneficiaries of the Trust; who in turn donated them to a select charity, Canadian Charities Association (“CCA”), and received a donation receipt having a purported value that exceeded the donation receipt received for their cash outlay to another charity, Millenium Charitable Foundation (“Millenium”), by a factor of 3 or more times.
[7] The Program was promoted by Global Learning Group Inc. (the “Promoter”) a Canadian corporation owned by Robert Lewis, whose name was linked to earlier donation programs such as Global Learning Systems, which entered into letter agreements with both charities for a fee. The Agreements indicate that the Promoter was to receive about 20% of the cash donations made to Millenium, net of its expenses in relation to the Program, and 20% of the amount of both the cash and in‑kind donations made to CCA. Millenium redonated 80% of the cash donations it received to CCA so, in the end, retained only a small portion of the cash donations it received from which it had to pay its operating expenses, including fees paid to other entities like JDS Corporation (“JDS”), of which one Mr. Denis Jobin was the sole officer, director, shareholder and worker, for administration services such as maintaining a database and preparing and/or issuing tax donation receipts on its behalf.
[8] The other parties involved in the Program, aside from the lawyers for the Promoter who appeared to have acted for almost everyone involved at some time or another, other than for Infosource Inc., were the administrators of the program. IDI Strategies Inc. (“IDI”), a corporation owned or controlled by James Penturn and Richard Glatt that had been involved with earlier donation programs, contracted with the Promoter to effectively administer the program for an annual fee that consisted of a lump sum of cash and a percentage of the cash donations made by donors under the Program, payable on the date of each such donation and which the Promoter directed Millenium to pay out of funds payable to it within the terms of the Promoter’s letter agreement with Millenium above discussed. The services IDI provided included general administrative and record keeping, developing and maintaining an electronic database for recording the details of the donors’ identification and contact information and their donations of cash and other properties, handling all verbal inquiries and preparing all required documentation in relation to the Program. JDS above mentioned was also contracted by the Promoter to perform computer consulting work, evidenced by numerous invoices issued to and paid by the Promoter in 2005, was contracted by the Trust to develop, maintain and host a database and register and record complete records of all capital beneficiaries and the property received and distributed by the Trust; all for essentially a lump sum set‑up fee and monthly fee of $3000; performed contract work for IDI as evidenced by payments made to it, and even kept databases and prepared tax donation receipts for Millenium and CCA, even though it had no contract with CCA but because, as Denis Jobin of JDS testified, they were all part of the same program from which he received instructions from Jack Keslassy of IDI, with whom he shared a small office. It should be noted JDS prepared the Assignment of Licences and related documents, including the Trust resolution approving the acceptance of participants as capital beneficiaries and the allocation of a specific number of licences.
[9] Another relevant party involved in the Program was Escrowagent Inc. (the “Escrow Agent”), a corporation controlled by Allan Beach, one of the solicitors for the Promoter, and others, who purportedly received documents from each applicant, including the Appellants, consisting of a Deed of Gift to Millenium for a cash outlay, a Cheque to Millenium for such outlay, a Deed of Gift of the In‑kind property ( i.e the courseware licences) to CCA, a cheque of $10.70 to the Escrow Agent for its fees, an Application for Consideration as a Capital Beneficiary to the Trust, and two directions to the Escrow agent authorizing it to deliver the gifts and accompanying Deed of Gift to the requisite charities, to date such cheques or documents to reflect the date of actual delivery and arrange for delivery of charitable receipts back to the donor- all if the donor did not revoke such gifts within 72 hours for the cash gift and 48 hours for the licences gift after being notified by email of being approved as a capital beneficiary and given a distribution of property from the Trust; and, in some cases, the donor would execute a Waiver of the time periods purportedly allowed for them to change their minds, referenced in the Deeds of Gift above, as in the case of Mariano (all such documents or items hereinafter together referred to as the “Transaction Documents”). All of the Escrow Agent’s services were clearly effectively undertaken by IDI and JDS from the evidence which includes correspondence from the Escrow Agent to the CRA confirming it, in fact, only played a small role and that the contemplated deliveries were made by IDI, JDS or others.
[10] Infosource, earlier mentioned, was the developer and proprietary owner of the 6 instructional courseware titles that formed the subject matter of the licenses in issue (the “Licenses”) described as:
1. Office 2000 Seminar on a Disk, which involved training for various Microsoft Office applications at beginner, intermediate and advanced levels;
2. How to Master Office XP, which was similar to Office 2000 Seminar on a Disk updated for Office XP;
3. How to Master Office 2003, which related to Microsoft’s further update of its Office products;
4. IC3, which was an internet and computing course certification to enable the user to obtain the competency;
5. A+ 2003, which dealt with an application that could be used for individuals training to become computer hardware technicians to handle the use of PCs; and
6. MCSE 2000, or the “Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer for 2000”, which was a more advanced application related to deploying Windows 2000 to multiple PCs.
[11] Infosource sold Licenses to its courseware, substantially all in the U.S. market with less than 5% in the Canadian market, which were packaged for one to multiple titles, were perpetual or time limited, and were for single or multiple users. At the relevant time, the products were delivered online or in CD Rom formats. The online delivery for multiple users involved the setup of an access site with a password. This option provided clients with administrative access and the ability to track the activities of their users through the so-called learning management system (the “LMS”).
[12] Infosource entered into various Licence agreements with Phoenix from 2004 to 2007, however the two most relevant are the two initial agreements reflected by an agreement dated October 20,2004 and a Schedule “B” amending the initial agreement dated September 14, 2005 pursuant to which Infosource transferred 250,000 licenses for each of the courseware titles to Phoenix on both dates, for a fee of $400,000 and $200,000 U.S. respectively; thereby transferring 3 million Licenses, consisting of 500,000 licences per courseware title, for a total fee of $600,000 within that one year period (hereinafter referred to as the “Master License Agreements”). The Master License Agreements permitted assignment of such licenses to third parties on subsequent notification to Infosource and allowed the holder, at its expense and from an authorized party, to convert the licenses to CD Rom format only, on a basis of one courseware title per CD. By the end of 2006, more than 5,000,000 of these Licences had been transferred to Phoenix, pursuant to all the respective License agreements between them. It is these Licences that were purportedly transferred through a “pipeline”; from Phoenix to the Trust to the Appellants to CCA.
III. Position of Parties [13] The Appellants argue that the Court should focus on the need to see the transactions through the lens of the Appellants’ appeals. In short, the Appellants’ position is that they met the four conditions of making the cash donation: i.e., 1. they made the donation; 2. the donation was made to Millenium, a registered charity; 3. they obtained a valid donation receipt; and 4. they claimed the deduction in the appropriate year. They argue the cash gift was voluntary and made the donation to benefit the charity, and achieved a tax savings. With respect to the donation in kind of Licences the Appellants say they have also met all the conditions; namely, 1. they received and owned the Licenses; 2. they donated the Licenses to CCA or its successor; 3. CCA was a registered charity; 4. they obtained a valid receipt; and 5. they claimed the deduction in the appropriate year.
[14] The Appellants argue that the circumstances behind them obtaining the Licenses, i.e, the chain of title for the Licenses from Infosource to Phoenix, then to the Trust, then to the Appellants and then finally to CCA are irrelevant, as is the fact the charities were subsequently deregistered. Qua Appellants, they argue, all the conditions were met at the time of the gifts and the gifts were separate, unconditional and did not result in any other benefit to them other than their desire to make a gift and obtain their entitled tax advantage therefrom. They point out that the Minister, in fact, assumed all the aforesaid conditions, including that they executed the appropriate deed of gifts, the charities were registered, they received receipts and they executed all the necessary documentation. In short, “we dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s” as evidenced by the Transaction Documents not in dispute and so qualify for the tax credits claimed.
[15] The Respondent takes a different approach than the Appellants. The Respondent alleges that the Appellants participated in the Program, a variation of an earlier scheme known as the Global Learning Systems, that was marketed so as to indicate the result of participating was that a participant would obtain a net or total cash advantage after the refunds from charitable tax credits in relation to the purported gifts that exceeded the participant’s cash outlay, which the Respondent described as essentially a “participation fee”. The Respondent described this scheme as being one where the Appellants executed a predetermined set of documents at the same time, the Transaction Documents; all of which were part of a donation scheme whereby the tax donation receipt for the gift of Licences exceeded the donation receipt for the cash gift by a multiple of three of more, resulting in a net profit. In fact, the ratio of value of the tax receipt for the gift in kind to cash for the Appellant Moshurchak was, in fact, 3:1 in 2004 and about 8:1 in 2005, while being 5:1 for Mariano in 2005.
IV. Analyses of Issues A. Was There a Gift by the Appellants to the Charities? [16] There is no dispute that the ITA does not define what a “gift” is. The definition of gift is found in established case law; namely, from the Federal Court of Appeal decision of Linden J.A. in The Queen v Friedberg, 92 DTC 6031, at page 6032, (affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada):
Thus, a gift is a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor … The tax advantage which is received from gifts is not normally considered a “benefit” within this definition, for to do so would render the charitable donations deductions unavailable to many donors.
[17] The three requisite elements of a gift thus are that: 1. there must be a voluntary transfer of property; 2. the property transferred must be owned by the donor; and 3. there must be no benefit or consideration to the donor, which element has, in later jurisprudence, been taken to mean that the donor must have had ‘donative intent’.
[18] In The Queen v Burns, 88 DTC 6101, a decision of Pinard J. of the Federal Court affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal ([1990] FCJ No. 174) discussed the concept of donative intent at p. 6105:
I would like to emphasize that one essential element of a gift is an intentional element that the Roman law identified as animus donandi or liberal intent … The donor must be aware that he will not receive any compensation other than pure moral benefit; he must be willing to grow poorer for the benefit of the donee without receiving any such compensation. …
[19] The Respondent has argued that the principle of donative intent then has an essential element that the donor must intend to impoverish himself or “grow poorer” from the gift. I agree that this is accepted law. In The Queen v Berg, 2014 FCA 25, 2014 DTC 5028, Near J.A., in finding the taxpayer “did not have the requisite donative intent for the purposes of section 118.1 of the Act” stated:
[29] … In my view, Mr. Berg did not intend to impoverish himself by transferring the time share units to Cheder Chabad. On the contrary, he intended to enrich himself by making use of falsely inflated charitable gift receipts to profit from inflated tax credit claims. …
[20] It is clear that the element of “impoverishment” is the crucial element to be found in determining donative intent, and that it is often couched in the language of “impoverishment”, or “not enriching one’s self” or “profiting from the gift” as indicated in Berg, but also in many cases before this Court, including Bandi v The Queen, 2013 TCC 230, 2013 DTC 1192, and Glover v The Queen, 2015 TCC 199, [2015] TCJ No. 160.
[21] It is also clear from the above that the expectation of receiving or actual receipt of a tax receipt itself from a charity does not per se vitiate any gift. The tax advantage resulting from claimed donation receipts is, after all, not the “benefit” contemplated by Friedberg and other case law above mentioned. This does not mean, however, that the expectation of an “inflated” tax receipt exceeding the value of the property transferred or the receipt of any other benefit does not vitiate a gift; all of which will depend on whether, in the circumstances, the taxpayer intended to impoverish himself.
[22] I note at this time that the Appellants’ counsel argued that the Appellants deprived themselves of both the cash and licences and hence impoverished themselves. The concept of deprivation in the context of transferring the property to the donee, itself a separate requirement of a gift as above alluded to, does not, in my opinion, equate with the concept of impoverishment, otherwise every transfer of property would automatically qualify as impoverishment. The concept of impoverishment means more than depriving oneself of property; it clearly means depriving oneself of property in such a manner as to not benefit from such deprivation. The manner in which the Appellants frame the issue is simply incorrect in my opinion.
[23] The Appellants also rely on the decision of Justice Woods of this Court in David v The Queen, 2014 TCC 117, 2014 DTC 1111, who in turn relied on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in The Queen v Doubinin, 2005 FCA 298, 2005 DTC 5624, for the proposition that the receipt of an inflated tax receipt should not usually be considered a benefit that negates a gift. Doubinin, at paragraphs 14 and 15, makes it clear that the taxpayers in that case could not have relied on the inflated tax credits because the charity in question could not have issued a tax receipt to the taxpayers due to the fact the contributions were made by a third party and so, on the specific facts of that case, Sexton J.A. found that “… it cannot be said that the Respondent received any actual benefit from the “inflated tax receipt”.”; thus, the expectation of the inflated tax receipt was irrelevant. In David, a case involving the purchase of inflated tax receipts, Justice Woods decided it would not be fair to decide the appeals on the basis of a donative intent argument raised by the Respondent at trial since it had not pleaded such assumption and granted the taxpayers a deduction for the cash actually expended. David was appealed by the Respondent, has been heard and a decision is pending by the Federal Court of Appeal. Accordingly, I am not swayed by the Appellants’ argument in this case, as the issue of donative intent has been specifically pleaded. Moreover, the language of the Federal Court of Appeal in Berg, above referred to, suggests otherwise at par 24:
[24] The underlying facts are not in dispute. The series of interconnected and pre-arranged transactions set out earlier in this judgment have been determined and are not in question, nor is the intention of Mr. Berg in dispute. It was accepted by the judge and it is evident from the record that Mr. Berg understood from the outset that the series of interconnected and pre-arranged transactions (or the “deal” as Mr. Berg himself described them as referred to at paragraph 27 of the judge’s reasons) were designed to mislead tax officials as to the FMV of the property transferred to Cheder Chabad. This was done solely for the purpose of receiving inflated tax receipts and claiming inflated tax credits. Nor can there be any doubt that Mr. Berg’s participation in the scheme was conditional upon him receiving the pretence documents to support his inflated claims.
[Emphasis added]
[24] It seems at least clear to me that where a taxpayer is aware he is receiving inflated tax receipts in the circumstances that the expectation of inflated tax receipts is a benefit that vitiates the gift, as Near J.A. found in Berg and I would suggest for the very reason that such finding of fact would automatically lead to the conclusion the taxpayer did not intend to impoverish himself, as Near J.A. also found as a second reason for allowing the Minister’s appeal, but which it seems logical to conclude also flows from the first.
[25] The fundamental disagreement between the parties in this matter lies in their framing of the issue. The Appellants argue that the gift of cash is separate and unconnected to the gift in kind and hence, since the Appellants only expected to receive a tax receipt equal in amount to the fair market value of those unconnected gifts of property, there is, in fact, no expectation of anything other than those expected fair market value receipts and hence no benefit received. In other words, they only expected to receive a tax receipt for the fair market value of the gifts, not an inflated value. In fact, each of the Appellants testified that they expected to benefit charities by gifts of cash and in kind with no strings attached and receive the tax receipts to which they were legally entitled for so doing. The Appellants argue that their position is evident from both the intention of the parties, evidenced from their testimony, as well as the Transaction Documents themselves.
[26] The Respondent’s position is that the Appellants expected, for making their cash gift to Millenium, to be accepted as capital beneficiaries of the Trust and receive a distribution of Licences as a result, which had a fair market value about equal to the value of Licences requested by them in their application to be accepted as a capital beneficiary and as identified in the valuation of the EMC Partners communicated to them by the Promoter; in essence, the two gifts are part of the same transaction and connected. The benefits the Appellants expected to receive are, in fact, numerous, a “chain of benefits” as described by the Respondent in argument; namely, the expectation to be accepted as a capital beneficiary, the expectation to be distributed Licences and the expectation that they would receive a tax receipt for the donation of such Licences at an inflated value, in the ratios above discussed, so that, in the end, they had an expectation they would profit from the cash donation.
[27] The Appellants suggest that their separate gifts were motivated by their desire to help others in need. Mr. Moshurchak specifically testified that, as a teacher, he saw the value in his students being taught how to use computers and software and saw the Program as a way to extend that valuable skill to adults who could not afford to buy such software or be taught by teachers like him. Mrs. Mariano testified that she was motivated by her desire to help others as well.
[28] While I appreciate the subjective intention of the appellants must always be considered, such stated intention is not determinative but must be based in some objective reality. The Supreme Court of Canada in Symes v Canada, [1993] 4 SCR 695 described the analysis of intention to be undertaken, at page 736, as follows:
As in other areas of law where purpose or intention behind actions is to be ascertained, it must not be supposed that in responding to this question, courts will be guided only by a taxpayer’s statements, ex post facto or otherwise, as to the subjective purpose of a particular expenditure. Courts will, instead, look for objective manifestations of purpose, and purpose is ultimately a question of fact to be decided with due regard for all of the circumstances. …
[Emphasis added]
[29] Unfortunately, not only is the Appellants’ own evidence more consistent with a stated intention of receiving a benefit other than the moral gift of giving, the evidence from their testimony and documentary evidence and other relevant circumstances strongly suggests the Appellants did not have an intention to impoverish themselves but, rather, to profit from their participation in the program.
[30] In brief, Mrs. Mariano, a registered nurse, testified she attended a seminar with a friend and an advisor and viewed a presentation the same or similar to a slide show put into evidence by the Respondent, after which she decided to participate in the Program which she also thought involved the transfer of computers by some entity and not software. She was not even aware of the type of property she purportedly was gifting let alone which of the charities involved was making the computers available to those in need. She admitted she signed all the transaction documents without reading them through and allowed her financial advisor, one Ms. “A”, to complete the documents on her behalf. Moreover, she bluntly admitted that she would not have donated cash without receiving the benefit of the tax credits for the gift in kind. All she knew is that she donated $7500 in cash and was going to get a net tax advantage “… more than that.” Her subjective intention to receive a benefit is crystal clear from her own admissions.
[31] Mr. Moshurchak, a retired teacher, on the other hand, insisted his intention was solely philanthropic, a desire to help the needy with no expectation to benefit other than the tax advantage that he did not consider a benefit, but an entitlement. He testified he attended a few of the seminars in Saskatoon before making his mind up to participate and identified a slide show presentation put to him by the Respondent as similar or the same as that he viewed at such presentations. He testified that he understood that he did not have to donate any Licences received as a capital beneficiary to CCA and could, for a small fee, have the licences converted to CD Rom format and keep them for himself or donate them to another charity. However, after making inquiries, he decided there was no charity in Saskatchewan that could use them so left them with the default charity identified in the Direction forming part of the Transaction Documents, namely, CCA. There was no evidence tendered as to the details of any such inquiry, neither to locate another more local charity to donate them to, nor, for that matter, to substantiate where and at what cost he could have had them converted to CD Rom format. There is nothing in the promotional materials, be it the slide show run by the Promoter at the hotels, nor any other evidence in any online site or otherwise, that dealt with such conversion procedure in any detail or disclosed the cost thereof. Moreover, aside from testifying he went online to ensure CCA was a registered charity and phoned it to make sure they were in operation, he does not appear to have made any effort to investigate their use of the Licences, whether and how they converted them to CD Rom or how they distributed them. For someone that evidence showed had no history of making any large donations, or any donations beyond the $50 to $100 range in any prior years, who suddenly donates $14,250 in one year and a purported $116,000 in another for the stated purpose of benefitting needy adults to learn how to operate computer software, without taking steps to ensure such largesse was properly converted and distributed and thereafter following up to see if he got his money’s worth, seems incredible. He seems not even to question the fact that two of the courseware products, the MCSE and A+ were highly technical software designed for advanced users for certification of computer hardware systems and multiple users, as earlier described, a far cry from the How to use Microsoft basic programs the other products referred to.
[32] Moreover, Mr. Moshurchak also testified he decided to not revoke his cash gift to Millenium because, from his inquiries, he was satisfied it was a “United Way like charity.” There is no evidence given as to why Mr. Moshurchak came to that conclusion and the only evidence of a description of Millenium put out by itself was from a single‑page web site Millenium had in the years in question, as confirmed by a Mr. Kroger who testified as the executive director of Millenium, that described it as accepting donations and making donations to other registered charities and specifically only mentioning its support of CCA but no other charities. The only evidence of a description of Millenium found in the promotional materials of the Promoter is that it is a “foundation’s foundation” and “the expert’s source for charities to turn to for support”, yet absolutely no charities, other than CCA, are mentioned in the same promotional material. This is hardly the foundation upon which to base a conclusion that Millenium was a United Way‑like charity, the latter of which openly advertises the large number of charitable recipients it contributes to.
[33] Mr. Moshurchak, who testified he had experience in identifying and choosing software for his school board and teaching its use to his students, seems to have put very little thought or energy into investigating the charities or the conversion of the software onto CD Rom nor its ultimate distribution, including even whether and to whom it was actually distributed, something that is totally inconsistent with his stated philanthropic intention that sprang from his experience, knowledge and professed interest in the subject matter. I simply do not find his testimony credible.
[34] Mr. Moshurchak also admitted that it would have mattered to him if he had not been accepted as a capital beneficiary, that he understood the program would generate a total cash advantage and agreed that same would be in the range of 76% based on the Promoter’s presentation using a 3:1 ratio. He also testified that had he not participated in this Program, he definitely would have made a large contribution to another charity, a statement I do not find credible given his history of small donations, but could not say for certain to whom or for what amount but probably not as much, suggesting at the very least the size of his cash donation was related to the benefit he received. Mr. Moshurchak also admitted that he and his spouse had commuted their teacher’s pension and that he was aware the program was marketed as a means to offset the tax cost of cashing in registered pension plans, as referred to in the promotional material he admitted reviewing and which was a factor he considered in deciding whether to participate in the program. All of these facts suggest his subjective intention was to profit, not impoverish himself, from his participation in the Program.
[35] Finally, as far as valuing his stated intention of philanthropic motivation, the evidence is clear that, in respect of his large 2005 donation, Mr. Moshurchak and his advisor, one Mr. “S”, negotiated for a larger ratio of licences for cash, 8:1 based on the actual cash sent by Mr. Moshurchak directly, on the basis that, as a repeat contributor and having regard to the large size of the cash donation, he would be able to obtain a larger number of Licenses. He also negotiated a kick‑back of part of the commission his advisor, Mr. S, received for what I will bluntly call the sale of the program to Mr. Moshurchak, and Mr. S. sent a cheque to Millenium for an additional $10,000 for the benefit of Mr. Moshurchak. Not only is the kick‑back ample evidence of a vitiating benefit received by Mr. Moshurchak, but the fact he was negotiating both the kick‑back and the value of Licences he would receive confirms that the cash and Licences were clearly connected donations in his mind. Moreover, Mr. Moshurchak’s testimony was expressed in the manner of “dealing” and “negotiating” the level of his contributions and benefits, more consistent with making a financial investment than making an unconditional gift. I should also note that it is quite clear from Marchevaux that the court will “not disregard a benefit simply because it was provided by a third party.” In my opinion, as far as Mr. Moshurchak’s appeal goes, he would be considered to have received a benefit from his gift just as a result of this kick‑back he negotiated.
[36] The Appellants also argue that the transaction documents support their stated intention to support their donative intent and the non‑connection of the two donations by arguing that they had the ability in the two respective Directions they executed in favour of the Escrow Agent to revoke their decision to deliver the cash or gift of licences within 72 and 48 hours respectively of being advised of their acceptance as capital beneficiaries. Consequently, they argue that they could have made a gift of cash only, or a gift of licences only, or both or none. On its face, such options seem to suggest there was no requirement of a cash payment and hence it could not be seen to be a fee for participating in any scheme.
[37] Frankly, the evidence of Mr. Jobin, of JDS, was that no cheques were cashed before any participant was notified of his or her acceptance as a capital beneficiary by the Trust via an email sent by Mr. Jobin as part of his duties. Mr. Moshurchak testified he was aware his cheque would not be cashed until the expiration of such 72 hour period as “that’s … the security” of the program. The Directions themselves clearly tie a participant’s acceptance as a capital beneficiary to the cash gift. The practice of the program administrators clearly shows no cheques were cashed until after the email signalling such acceptance had been sent out; a practice consistent with the “security” evidence of Mr. Moshurchak and understood by him.
[38] It is clear to me that any participants in the program knew that their cheques for the cash contribution would not be cashed until they were notified they were accepted as capital beneficiaries and, thus, would be receiving the further benefit of Licence distributions for further gifting. There is no evidence anyone, let alone the Appellants, ever revoked their Licences donations or elected to keep the Licences for themselves.
[39] With respect to keeping the Licences, it is clear the from the details contained in the Assignment of Licences that each of the Appellants would have received a large number of the 6 types of Licences; begging the question of what they would do with such a large duplication of each if they were retained for their own use. Aside from the fact Mrs. Mariano was not even expecting to receive Licences, it begs the question what she would have done with multiple copies of them, 195 in all, or what Mr. Moshurchak would have done with over 4,500 Licences purportedly distributed to him consisting of over 700 of each of the 6 types of Licences in 2005 alone. Considering there is no evidence, as earlier mentioned, that any participant was notified what the actual cost of converting the Licences to CD Rom format for his own use would be in any of the promotional material or Transaction Documents pertaining to the Program, and given the testimony of Mr. Jobin, who issued donation receipts on behalf of CCA, that no one ever elected to keep them throughout the entire program, I am satisfied such option was window dressing at best; designed to give CRA the impression there was an actual choice or that the donations were unconnected.
[40] I also note that the purported target of these philanthropically issued Licences was the charitable reci