Case information

Taxation — Income tax — Charitable donation — Pharmaceuticals — Ownership — Minister’s assumptions of fact — Burden and standard of proof — Cash donation made by applicant taxpayer in 2005 under Canadian Humanitarian (“CH”) Trust program — In exchange for cash donation to registered charity, applicant taxpayer received tax receipts and was selected as capital beneficiary of a CH trust entitling him to a number of essential medicine units, which were subject to a lien — Taxpayer subsequently transferring medicine units through deeds of gift to other registered charity for distribution by other organization to countries in need, and receiving “in kind” tax receipts — Minister allowing tax credit based on cash donation, but not in relation to transfer of pharmaceuticals, because Minister assuming that title to pharmaceuticals had never been passed to taxpayer — What is the correct approach to the burden of proof, standard of proof, and the role and effect of the facts assumed by the Minister in assessing tax?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2005, the applicant taxpayer, Mr. Eisbrenner, participated in a donation program called the Canadian Humanitarian Trust. In so doing, he was issued charitable donation receipts. Two were in respect of cash payments made by him to a charity, and two were in respect of pharmaceuticals he claimed to have gifted to another charity. In his 2005 tax return, Mr. Eisbrenner claimed charitable donation credits in respect of these receipts. In reassessing Mr. Eisbrenner, the Minister of National Revenue disallowed the charitable donation credits claimed in respect of receipts from the in kind charity. This is because, contrary to what was pleaded in Mr. Eisbrenner’s Notice of Appeal, the Minister assumed in his Reply that Mr. Eisbrenner never took possession of, nor acquired title to, any pharmaceuticals. The Tax Court dismissed Mr. Eisbrenner’s appeal. The trial judge found that Mr. Eisbrenner failed to establish, on a prima facie standard, that he had acquired the pharmaceuticals and therefore could not make a gift of them to the in kind charity. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Eisbrenner’s appeal. The court noted that Mr. Eisbrenner bore the burden of proving the allegations made in his Notice of Appeal to the effect that he had acquired the pharmaceuticals and that he was the legal and beneficial owner of them prior to their donation, and so on a balance of probabilities.