1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Problem Clarifications – 2015

2015 Bowman Tax Moot

January 13, 2015

The Bowman Moot Committee received the following question outside of the clarification period, but has decided to provide an answer to all teams nonetheless:

“Can a team use the transcripts from the trial in their argument regarding facts?”

The Bowman Moot Committee provides the following answer:

Subject to section 2 of the Moot Rules, and paragraph 5 of the Moot Problem, the teams may consult any sources they require. Pursuant to section 6.3, any team referring to external materials in its factum shall include copies of such materials in an appendix/appendices to the factum.

*     *     *

January 12, 2015

The Bowman Moot Committee received the following question outside of the clarification period, but has decided to provide an answer to all teams nonetheless:

“As it currently reads, the question is whether the taxpayer had a source of income. Since the taxpayer carried on a business as a lawyer, it’s pretty clear that the taxpayer did have a source of income. The real issue is whether the expenditures that he incurred were (as the Tax Court held) incurred in the course of his business as a lawyer or, if not, whether they were incurred in a separate activity that constituted its own source of income.”

The Bowman Moot Committee provides the following answer:

The first question in issue on appeal relates to the Tax Court’s discussion and decision at paragraphs 19-25 of its reasons. The first question may be clarified as follows: “Was there a source of income against which the taxpayer could deduct the expenditures?”

*     *     *

January 6, 2015

The Bowman Moot Committee received the following question:

“The trial judge ruled in favour of the taxpayer on the first issue, and against the taxpayer on the second issue. Therefore, the Crown will challenge the trial judge’s reasons on the first issue. I was wondering about the Committee’s views on whether the taxpayer, in its factum, should anticipate the Crown’s arguments on the first issue, and in effect support or supplement the trial judge’s reasons on this issue, before arguing that the trial judge erred on the second issue. Alternatively, the taxpayer can focus solely on the trial judge’s errors on the second issue in its factum.”

The Bowman Moot Committee provides the following answer:

The taxpayer is appealing the decision of the Tax Court. The Crown is cross-appealing on the issue of whether a source of income existed for the taxpayer.

The parties are expected to address both issues in their written and oral submissions.