The Bowman Moot Problem 2012

The participants in the Bowman Moot are addressing the appeal of the Federal Court of
Appeal’s decision in GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen (2010 FCA 201), which was argued at the
Supreme Court of Canada on January 13 of this year. The Federal Court of Appeal decision is, in
turn, an appeal from the Tax Court decision in GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen (2008 TCC
324).

For the purposes of the Bowman Moot, the appeal is before the “Supreme Moot Court for Tax
Appeals,” which has jurisdiction equivalent to that of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The participants were given the following instructions:

1. Both lower courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in their respective decisions.
2. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is now appealed to the Supreme Moot Court for
   Tax Appeals.
3. The questions at issue are:
   1. Did the Federal Court of Appeal err by applying the reasonable business person test to
      the interpretation of subsection 69(2) of the Income Tax Act?
   2. Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in interpreting subsection 69(2) by failing to apply
      the arm’s-length principle on a transaction-by-transaction basis and on the basis that
      members of the multinational group are operating as separate entities?
4. Of all of the issues raised in the reasons given by the lower courts, only those with respect
   to the interpretation of subsection 69(2) of the Income Tax Act are to be addressed by
   counsel for the parties in their written and oral submissions. Arguments not referenced in
   the reasons of the lower courts may be advanced by counsel in their submissions but only
   as they relate to the above-noted issues.
5. The moot problem is an actual/live case-in-progress, and therefore counsels’ factums are to
   be original works, as opposed to any copy or mere imitation of existing filed factums.
6. The Part XIII reassessments, penalties and costs are not to be addressed.