Canada: Mark-to-market available to non-financial institutions

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: Mark-to-market available to non-financial institutions

diep.jpg

Nancy Diep

In a recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA), it was confirmed that the adoption of mark-to-market valuation is not restricted to financial institutions for the purposes of computing income for Canadian tax purposes.

The case involved Kruger Inc. (the taxpayer), a Canadian-based company that carries on a paper products business, with most of its production destined for the US. In order to manage its foreign exchange exposure, the taxpayer started in the 1980s to purchase and sell foreign currency option contracts. By the mid 1990s, the taxpayer had a team of specialised derivatives traders that managed the options and other hedges. In effect, the company had become a speculative trader in derivatives as a separate business and, in reporting its profit for tax purposes, it adopted mark-to-market accounting for its trading business.

The Tax Court of Canada found that taxpayers were subject to an overarching principle of taxation that, unless the Income Tax Act provided otherwise, profits and losses could only be recognised when "realised".

In overturning the lower court decision, the FCA resorted to first principles in posing the question of whether the taxpayer's method of accounting provided an accurate picture of its income for the year and found that there is nothing at law that excludes mark-to-market accounting if it achieves this objective. Once a taxpayer demonstrates that mark-to-market accounting provides this accurate picture, the onus is on the Crown (government) to demonstrate an alternative method that provides a "more accurate" picture, which it failed to do here.

As a final interesting matter, the FCA also addressed the question of whether the option contracts qualified as inventory. In the court's view, the contracts were not property held for sale, a key requirement in the meaning of inventory, and so constituted a separate category of property that is not capital property and not inventory, the impact of which still must be accounted for by a taxpayer.

Nancy Diep (nancy.diep@blakes.com), Calgary

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

Tel: +1 403 260 9779

Website: www.blakes.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
Gift this article