The taxpayers both participated in the Global Learning Gifting Initiative program (the “GLGI Program”) which provided them with two charitable receipts, one for the cash they contributed, and another for educational courseware licences (the “Licences”), purportedly acquired and gifted on their behalf to a registered charity.
MacPhee J applied Maréchaux to find that since participation in the GLGI Program constituted a single interconnected arrangement with a view to profiting from large charitable receipts, none of the “gifts” made by the taxpayers including the cash components qualified as gifts for s. 118.1 purposes, so that no credit could be claimed for even the cash components, as now argued by the taxpayers.
He further found that the accommodation under s. 248(30) of certain advantages did not assist the taxpayers because there thus was no “gift,” as required by s. 248(30). Furthermore, even if there were a cash “gift”, the amount of the related advantages (being the dollar amount of the licences that were to be received or alternatively, the inflated tax credits to be received or, in the further alternative, the value of the “pretence” documents to be received) should be valued for s. 248(32) purposes based on the value of what was expected to be received at the time of the “donation” rather than on what in fact was received under a sham arrangement . Thus, on that basis, their amount exceeded the cash contribution amounts and, thus, exceeded the 80% threshold under s. 248(30).