Concept
Morrison Program
Walby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations / B. Meaning of the Word “Gift”
"In Morrison, the taxpayer participated in a charitable donation program — the Canadian Humanitarian Trust donation program (the CHT Program). According to the promotional materials for the CHT Program, the CHT Program involved the following elements: the client makes a cash donation to a registered charitable foundation (Foundation A); the client applies to WHI [World Health Initiatives Inc.] to be considered as a potential Class A beneficiary of CHT; CHT transfers title to World Health Organization (‘WHO’) Essential Medicine Units to the successful applicant; the client chooses to donate WHO Essential Medicine Units (‘WHOEM Units’) [pharmaceuticals] to a registered charitable foundation (Foundation B); Foundation A issues a tax receipt for the cash donation and Foundation B issues a tax receipt for the net value of the WHOEM Units; and WHOEM Units are distributed to those in need in developing countries. Mr. Morrison participated in the CHT Program in 2004 and 2005. In reassessing Mr. Morrison’s 2005 taxation year, the Minister allowed a tax credit based on the cash payment he made in that year. For 2004, the tax credit based on the cash payment was denied. Therefore, the Tax Court Judge in Morrison only considered whether Mr. Morrison should be allowed a charitable donation tax credit based on the cash paid in 2004. In filing his tax return for 2004, Mr. Morrison claimed that he had made two charitable donations: $15,350 in cash and $41,108.82 based on the alleged value of certain pharmaceuticals. The Tax Court Judge allowed Mr. Morrison’s claim for a charitable donation tax credit for the cash that he paid to the registered charity on the basis that this payment of cash was a gift. The Tax Court Judge stated that Mr. Morrison issued a cheque in good faith to D&H LLP in trust for the benefit of ADRA as a gift to that charity, that the cash gift was paid from his own funds, and that although he may have expected to receive pharmaceuticals from CHT to donate to an in-kind charity, the legal and economic reality was that he received no pharmaceuticals from CHT and donated nothing of value to MCF in 2004. Accordingly, the cash donation resulted in no adjunct benefit to Mr. Morrison."
Related Ideas
- IssuesWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · III. Issue and Standard of Review
- Interrelated TransactionWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · A. Were the Transactions Interconnected?
- Program MechanicsWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · I. Background
- Interconnected ArrangementWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · II. Tax Court Decision
- Donative IntentWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · II. Tax Court Decision
- Donative IntentWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · C. Interpretation of Value in subsection 248(30) of the Act
- GLGI ProgramWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · Case tabs
- Receipt ArgumentWalby v. Canada, 2025 FCA 94 | Tax Interpretations · A. Were the Transactions Interconnected?