That is the situation Form RC268 is built for. A Canadian resident who works in the United States, on assignment or for part of the year, and who contributes to a United States retirement plan through that work, claims the deduction on this form. The claim rests on the treaty rather than on ordinary deduction rules, so the plan has to be a United States plan and the contributions have to relate to your work there. One group sits outside it: a person who commutes across the border to work each day is not covered. Keep the plan statements and the payroll records that show what went in and when, because the claim is only as good as the evidence behind it.
Who files Form RC268?
- 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
Canadian residents working in the United States on assignment or part of the year who contributed to a US plan. 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
Canadian residents working in the United States on assignment or part of the year who contributed to a US plan.

The exception worth knowing
The deduction is treaty-based and interacts with Canadian registered-plan room, so claiming it correctly protects both this year's deduction and next year's contribution space.
Your next step
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on RC268 — US plan contributions (cross-border). Whatever you have is enough to start the conversation, including nothing but the dates.
Reviewed for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. General guidance only. Your own facts decide the answer, so bring them to a call before relying on this.
What these engagements turn on
Assignment to the United States with plan contributions continuing throughout
A Canadian resident was posted to a United States employer across consecutive tax years and stayed in that employer's retirement plan for the whole posting. Payroll ran in the United States and the Canadian returns had been prepared without reference to it. The work was to establish the treaty basis for the deduction, obtain the plan statements covering the assignment, and tie the contributions to the assignment period. The engagement produced a claim on each affected return and a file note recording the plan, the employment and the dates, so the position can be explained if it is ever queried.
Read how this one runsSplit year where only some contributions belonged to the claim
The client spent the earlier months of the year employed in Canada and the balance on assignment in the United States, contributing to a plan there. The year end statement from the plan showed a single total with no split. The work consisted of reconstructing the contribution dates from payroll records, matching them to the assignment period, and then deciding what the return could properly claim. What the engagement produced was a supported allocation rather than an estimate, together with a short memorandum setting out how it was arrived at and which documents it rests on.
Read how this one runsA daily commuter who had been claiming the deduction in error
The client crossed the border to work each day and had been claiming a deduction for contributions to a United States plan for several years. The form does not reach a daily commuter, so the claims had been wrong from the start. The work was to confirm the travel pattern from records rather than recollection, identify the affected years, and correct them through adjustment requests before the CRA raised the point. The engagement produced corrected returns and a written explanation of the commuting pattern, which is the document that matters when a long standing claim is withdrawn.
Read how this one runsSequencing a plan claim against Canadian registered contribution room
The client contributed to a United States plan while on assignment and had also been making Canadian registered contributions on a standing instruction. The two had never been considered in the same conversation. The work was to set them side by side for the year, take the treaty deduction into account, and only then decide what the Canadian contributions should be. The engagement produced a contribution plan for the following year and a claim for the current one that does not quietly cost the client space later. It is a sequencing problem, and sequencing has to happen before the money moves.
Read how this one runsPayroll records that did not separate employee and employer amounts
The employer's United States payroll reported plan contributions as a single line, with nothing to show what the employee had paid in and what the employer had added. The deduction does not follow that presentation. The work was to obtain the plan statements and the underlying payroll detail, reconcile them, and establish the amounts attributable to the employee before anything went on a return. The engagement produced a reconciliation the client can repeat each year and a request to the employer to report the split going forward, which removes the problem at source.
Read how this one runsReviewing earlier years where the deduction had never been claimed
A client arrived with completed returns covering an assignment in the United States, none of which mentioned contributions to the plan there. Nothing was wrong on the face of them. A deduction had simply been missed. The work was to review the years still open to adjustment, confirm the plan and the assignment period for each, and prepare adjustment requests supported by the plan statements. The engagement produced a set of filed adjustment requests and a note of which years were out of reach, so the client knows where the line falls and why.
Read how this one runsA Penalty Argued on the Facts Rather Than the Form
Reasonable cause is a documented story with dates, not an assertion of good intent. The engagement assembles what the client actually knew and when, and puts the sequence in writing alongside the filings it explains.
Read how this one runsWintering in the US Long Enough to Become a US Filer
Days in the United States accumulate across three years, and enough of them make you a US resident for tax regardless of immigration status. The file counts the days properly and files the statement that keeps the position closer connection rather than residence.
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
Software revenue crosses borders by default — sourcing rules, withholding on licence-like payments and IP location decide the effective rate.
Software revenue is rarely taxed where the team sits. Licence, subscription and service income are characterised differently by each side, and the answer decides withholding at source, treaty relief and whether a foreign customer creates a taxable presence at all — questions that are cheap to settle before the contract and expensive afterwards.
- 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
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
What people ask us about Form RC268
Yes. The form is written for a Canadian resident who is not a daily commuter, so the daily cross border commuter is the one worker it does not reach, even where the plan and the contributions look identical to a colleague's. This catches people who change pattern partway through a year. If you spent some of the year on assignment and the rest of it commuting, the two periods are not the same for this purpose, and the file should show which contributions belong to which. Work out the pattern first, from travel records and the employer's own account of the posting, and only then decide what the return claims.
It interacts with it, and that is the reason to get the claim right rather than approximately. The deduction is treaty based, and it sits alongside the room you have for Canadian registered contributions. A claim made carelessly can cost you contribution space in the following year as well as accuracy in this one. Practically, that means the United States plan contributions and any Canadian registered contributions for the same year should be looked at together before either is finalised, not in two separate conversations months apart. If you are contributing to both, say so at the start of the engagement rather than when the return is being drafted.
Yes. The form contemplates a Canadian resident who works in the United States on assignment or for part of the year, so a partial year is ordinary rather than exceptional. What matters is matching contributions to the period they relate to. Payroll for a split year often runs on two systems, and the year end statement may show a single total with no breakdown. The work is usually reconciliation: establish the dates of the assignment, obtain the plan statements that cover them, and then decide what the return claims. Do that before the return is drafted, because unpicking it afterwards means an adjustment instead of a filing.
It is treaty based, and the distinction is not academic. An ordinary deduction stands on the domestic rules alone. A treaty based one stands on the agreement between the two countries, which is why the plan has to be a United States plan and why your own status as a Canadian resident forms part of the test rather than the background to it. In practice this changes what the file has to contain. You are supporting a position, not simply entering a figure, so the working papers should record the plan, the employment that generated the contributions, and the period of the assignment. If the CRA asks later, that record is the answer.
Plan statements for the year, showing the contributions and the dates they were made. Payroll records from the United States employment, so the contributions can be tied to that work. Something that fixes the period of the assignment, which can be the assignment letter itself. And the details of any Canadian registered contributions for the same year, because the two have to be considered together. Gather all of it before the return is drafted. The usual delay is a plan administrator in another country taking weeks to produce a statement, and that is worth starting early rather than discovering during filing season.
Yes, through more than one channel. The treaty has an exchange-of-information article that supports both routine and on-request exchange. Separately, an intergovernmental agreement has Canadian financial institutions identify US-reportable accounts and report them to the CRA, which passes them to the IRS, with the reverse flow for Canadian residents. Most other country pairs use the Common Reporting Standard for the same purpose. See FATCA reporting.
Missed years are handled as one package, not one at a time, because the route chosen for the first year determines the relief available for the rest. Each country has a disclosure or relief programme with its own conditions, and entering the right one — before the authority contacts you — is usually what keeps penalties down. Filing quietly outside a programme forfeits that protection. See catching up on missed returns.



