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

After joining Milbank from Akin Gump, the fund tax specialist discusses sponsor demand, practice building, and the tax challenges facing asset managers
Partner payouts could also be reduced by a fifth, it has been reported
There is no logical reason not to extend an exemption from EU CFC rules to multinationals headquartered in side-by-side jurisdictions, USCIB said
While rarely the sole driver of a combination, tax is becoming an increasingly important part of firms' efforts to keep up with client expectations
New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Gift this article