The trust files, and you carry the consequence if it does not. That is the whole shape of this obligation, and it catches people who read the instructions literally: the return is the trust's annual information return, but the reporting duty is enforced against the US owner, who is expected to see that it is filed. In practice that means a US person with an interest in a foreign structure has to obtain accounts from trustees who have no US reporting habit, restate them on a US basis, and get the return in on the trust's behalf. Treating it as somebody else's filing is the most common way a year goes missing.
Who files Form 3520-A?
- 15+Years of the founder's cross-border experience
- 18,000+Clients served across our offices in India, the USA, Canada and the UAE
- 5.0Google rating
- 4Global offices — India, USA, Canada & UAE
Foreign trusts treated as grantor trusts with a US owner — with the US owner responsible for ensuring the trust files. The obligation is decided by facts rather than by tax owing, which is why a nil position does not remove it.
The rule on who files
Foreign trusts treated as grantor trusts with a US owner — with the US owner responsible for ensuring the trust files.

Where it does not apply
The filing duty sits on the trust but the exposure sits on the US owner, and many ordinary foreign structures — a family settlement, certain retirement and education arrangements abroad — turn out to be trusts for US purposes even though nobody involved ever used that word.
What to do next
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on 3520-A — foreign trust annual return. Ask before the move rather than after it, because most of the useful options expire on the date.
Reviewed against current guidance for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. General information, not advice for your circumstances — call our 24-hour helpline to discuss your own position.
Files that look like this one
An arrangement nobody had called a trust, read before it was reported
A settlement holding a family's property abroad had been in place for a generation. Nobody involved had used the word trust: the deed was in another language, the local adviser called it a family arrangement, and the client's US return had never mentioned it. The work began with the document rather than the form — reading the deed and the resolutions, establishing who had contributed property and what rights they retained, and forming a written view on whether there was a trust with a US owner at all. That reasoned, dated view is what the engagement produced. The filings followed from it.
Read how this one runsWho files what, mapped across a family in three countries
One structure, relatives in three countries, and a US person in the middle of it who had assumed the whole thing was somebody else's problem. Several different filings were potentially in play, on different forms, with different filers and different dates. The work was a map: who the owner was for US purposes, who the US beneficiaries were, what each of them had to file in their own name, and what had to come from the trustees before any of it could be prepared. The engagement produced that map in writing, agreed with the family, and then the filings it called for.
Read how this one runsTrustees abroad who would not sign, and a return filed regardless
The trustees sat in a jurisdiction with no US reporting habit, and they declined to sign anything addressed to a foreign tax administration. That is a common position and it does not end the obligation, because the exposure stays with the US owner. The work was obtaining the underlying figures the return needs, restating them, filing in the capacity available to the owner, and keeping a dated record of every request put to the trustees and every answer received. That record is what a later argument about the year would rest on, and producing it was part of the engagement.
Read how this one runsA foreign year end, and accounts restated for a US filing
The trust's accounts were prepared on a foreign basis, to a year end that did not match the US calendar year, in a currency that moved across it. Nothing in them was wrong. None of it was in a form a US information return could use. The work was restating income and distributions on a US basis, allocating the foreign period to the US year, and settling a translation approach that could be applied the same way in every later year. The engagement produced a restated set of figures and a documented method, so the next year is a repeat rather than a fresh argument.
Read how this one runsA trust settled long before the client became a US person
The trust had been settled by the client's parents years before the client moved to the United States, and the family's question was whether a structure predating any US connection could create a US filing at all. It can. What matters is when the person became a US person, not when the trust was created, because the obligation is defined by the owner's status. The work was establishing that date, identifying the years running from it, and determining who the owner was for US purposes in each of them. The engagement produced a start date on the record and a filing position for every year after it.
Read how this one runsYears of filings made by the wrong family member
The structure had been reported for several years, and correctly in the narrow sense that a return went in each year. It had been filed by the wrong person: a relative who administered the family's affairs, rather than the US person the trust's income was attributable to. Because the exposure follows the owner and not the administrator, the filed years did not protect the person actually at risk. The work was establishing who the owner had been in each year, correcting the filings from the first affected year forward, and setting out the reason for the change in writing alongside them.
Read how this one runsA Family Trust Abroad With Reporting on Both Sides
A trust settled in one country and a beneficiary living in another produces reporting for the trust, the settlor and the beneficiary, on different forms and different dates. The engagement maps who files what before anything is prepared.
Read how this one runsOne Salary, Two Countries Claiming It
A US citizen resident in Canada, taxed in full on both sides because each return was prepared without the other in view. Deciding which country has the first right to the income, then claiming relief on the second return in the right order, is what stops the same dollar being taxed twice.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
Holding structures live or die on treaty access, beneficial ownership and substance — the MLI's principal-purpose test now sits over every arrangement.
A holding structure is only as good as its reporting. Foreign affiliates, accrued passive income and distributions each carry their own return, and the penalties on those attach to the form rather than to any tax being owed — so a structure that saves tax can still cost money if the information returns are late.
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
What people ask us about Form 3520-A
Often, and the word nobody used is irrelevant. A great many ordinary arrangements abroad — a settlement holding property for the next generation, a nominee holding shares for relatives, certain retirement and education vehicles — are trusts for US purposes even though the family, the lawyer who drew the deed and the local tax authority all call them something else. What decides it is what the arrangement does rather than what it is called: whether property is held by one person for the benefit of another, on terms somebody set. So the first piece of work is never the form. It is reading the deed, the resolutions and the actual pattern of payments. Reporting a foreign trust sets out what follows.
Ownership here is not the same idea as ownership in a deed, which is why people answer this wrongly about their own family. The return applies to a foreign trust treated as a grantor trust with a US owner, and the owner is the US person the trust's income is attributed to — typically whoever settled property on it, and sometimes a person who retained rights over it or who funded it indirectly. So the answer turns on who put what in and what they kept, not on who is named as trustee or who actually receives the money. We establish that from the deed, the funding history and the pattern of distributions, and only then decide who files what.
In the ordinary position rather than an unusual one, and no further from the obligation. Trustees abroad are generally answerable to their own authorities and not to anybody else's, and many will decline to sign a return addressed to a foreign tax administration. What can be done is to obtain the underlying material the return needs — the trust's income, its distributions, the identity of its US beneficiaries — restate it on a US basis, and file in the capacity available to the owner. Where the trustees will not cooperate at all, every request made and every answer received is recorded as it happens, because that record is the only material a later reasonable-cause argument can be built from.
Possibly, and the answer is not the same for every arrangement or every country. Some retirement and education vehicles hold property for a named beneficiary on terms set by somebody else, which is the shape of a trust whatever the local label says. Others sit closer to a contract with an institution. Whether a treaty article reaches the arrangement at all is part of the same question, and it can affect the reporting as well as the tax. So the vehicle has to be read rather than classified from its name: the governing document, who contributes, who controls the investments, and what the beneficiary can actually demand. We form that view in writing, because the year's reporting depends on it.
They are different filings with different filers, and a US owner of a foreign trust commonly has both in the same year. One is the trust's own annual information return, covering its income, its distributions and its US beneficiaries. The other is the US person's own return of transactions with the trust — what went in, what came out — and of receipts from foreign persons more generally. The figures have to agree, and that is where the work is: a distribution shown one way in the trust's return and another way in the owner's is the inconsistency an examiner reads first. We prepare them together from one restated set of accounts. The second is covered at foreign gifts and trusts.
A tax return does not generally ask you to declare which passports you hold; it asks about residence, and in the US case it applies to citizens by definition. What does ask is your bank. Account-opening self-certification under FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard asks which countries you are a tax resident or citizen of, and the answer is reported onward to the tax authority. So the practical answer is that the information arrives either way. See FATCA reporting.
Yes. Equity held directly, shares acquired under an employee plan once they have vested to you, units in foreign funds, the custodial account they sit in and the foreign bank account that funds it are all disclosable by a resident — separately, with acquisition cost, peak value and income for the year. This is where returning employees of multinational groups most often have a gap, because the plan administrator reports to the employer, not to you. See Schedule FA reporting.



