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

HMRC’s push for unified tax adviser registration won’t prevent every instance of improper conduct, but it is good for taxpayers and the UK’s reputation
Elsewhere, the UAE’s tax office has issued an update on registration penalties and two firms have been busy making lateral hires
The case sits within a context of Brazil signalling that it is replacing informal discretion and ambiguity with structures that reward analytical rigour, one expert tells ITR
Jeff Soar lifts the lid on WTS UK’s ambitious recruitment plans, the firm's positioning against the big four, and why tax is the perfect profession for AI
The move reinforces Milan’s role as a key European hub for international business, the firm said
Australia’s government has also announced that it will implement the pillar two side-by-side agreement
Sara Morgan is due to join Joseph Hage Aaronson & Bremen as a partner in London, ITR understands
The newly combined tax team has already worked on thousands of joint client matters, leaders from McDermott Will & Schulte tell ITR
As AI becomes increasingly intuitive and idiot-proof, its tax applicability is becoming impossible to overstate
New data on public CbCR showed uneven adoption, as Singapore advanced pillar two compliance and firms expanded their tax capabilities
Gift this article