Intention to hedge was not condition precedent for hedging

Federal appeal | Tax | Income tax | Capital gains and losses

Hedging instrument. Taxpayer made cash settlement payments in settlement of forward contract, which was bet against price of his common shares in bank. Taxpayer treated cash settlement payments as being on income account under s. 9(1) of Income Tax Act and claimed business losses. Minister of National Revenue reassessed taxpayer on basis that payments were made on account of capital and resulted in capital losses. Tax Court judge allowed taxpayer’s appeal. Judge held that cash settlement payments were payments made on income account resulting in business losses. Judge first held that forward contract was entered into by taxpayer as adventure or concern in nature of trade as speculative instrument. Judge then held that taxpayer did not hedge capital asset of his bank shares when he entered into forward contract because he did not have intention to hedge and there was no link between forward contract and ownership of or transaction in respect of shares. Minister appealed. Appeal allowed and Minister’s reassessments confirmed. Taxpayer’s shares were capital property, so if forward contract had effect of hedging risk linked to those shares, losses would be treated as capital losses. Taxpayer was aware of hedging effect which forward contract would have on his shares. Judge erred in law in not following binding precedent defining hedge in Supreme Court of Canada judgment (PD judgment). Based on test in PD judgment, forward contract was hedging instrument since it neutralized or mitigated risk to which underlying asset of shares was exposed. Intention to hedge was not condition precedent for hedging. Judge erred in distinguishing GW judgment on basis that taxpayer had no ownership risk to hedge. As taxpayer’s shares were exposed to risk, judge ought to have concluded that that risk was mitigated by forward contract.

The Queen v. Macdonald (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 3400, 2018 CarswellNat 3823, 2018 FCA 128, 2018 CAF 128, Marc Noël C.J., Pelletier J.A., and de Montigny J.A. (F.C.A.); reversed (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 3934, 2017 CarswellNat 9106, 2017 TCC 157, 2017 CCI 157, Dominique Lafleur J. (T.C.C. [General Procedure]).

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Ontario should switch to no-cost class actions, law commission says

AG names nominating authority for construction disputes

Fasken’s Sarah Graves joins Kidney Cancer Canada board

Legal clinic workers join Ontario professionals’ union

Statement of Principles will be debated again September, LSO says

Citing blog post, judge says lawyer withheld key case law

Most Read Articles

Lawyer's negligence case sheds light on rules for expert witnesses

Citing blog post, judge says lawyer withheld key case law

Small claims court judges have little sway on anti-SLAPP cases

Orlando Da Silva named chief administrator of ATSSC