Cost amount, in aggregate — and that single word changes who has to file. A holding bought long ago and now worth many times what was paid for it can sit under the line, while a recent purchase of something worth far less can sit over it. Clients who compare their portfolio statement against the threshold therefore get the wrong answer in both directions, and the ones most surprised are usually those whose foreign holdings have done well. Work from what was paid, converted to Canadian dollars, and add the holdings together. Market value is relevant to the tax on a gain, not to whether the statement is required.
T1135 — meaning in cross-border tax
What T1135 means in practice — the meaning first, then the consequence.
- 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
Canada's foreign income verification statement, reporting specified foreign property. It is tested on cost amount rather than market value, in aggregate.
Why the term matters
Nothing in this area depends on owing money. The obligation attaches to ownership, control or signature authority, and the exposure accumulates quietly across years in which nothing was payable.

What one system calls it and the other does not
Where a definition depends on a threshold, the two systems usually measure the same underlying thing on different bases — gross against net, cost against market, calendar against fiscal. Two correct measurements of the same facts can therefore land on opposite sides.
Where it turns up
Where you will actually meet T1135 is here — in a return, a certificate or a deadline rather than in a glossary.
What it means for your own file
The question worth asking is not what T1135 means but whether it applies to you this year. That is a computation on your facts. Describe the situation in your own words; translating it into forms is our job.
Reading a definition tells you the rule. It does not tell you the order, and on a cross-border file the order in which returns go out frequently decides whether relief is available at all.
Reviewed for accuracy for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Published as general information. For a position on your own file, call the 24-hour helpline.
International tax accountant — what this page covers
Most readers of this page are looking for international tax accountant. What follows sets out how it works for T1135: who is caught by it, what has to be filed, and what the work costs, agreed before it begins.
Cross-border tax case studies
A portfolio well above the line on value and below it on cost
A client had held foreign shares for two decades and had been told by a friend that anything of that size had to be reported. The comparison had been made against the market value on his statements. We built a cost schedule from the original purchase confirmations, converted each at the rate on its acquisition date, and aggregated them year by year. The engagement produced a documented cost computation for each year under review, a written conclusion on whether the statement had been required, and a schedule the client could carry forward and update.
A recent inheritance that crossed the line while barely moving in value
A client inherited a foreign holding, watched it do nothing for several years and assumed that a flat investment raised no filing question. The test runs on cost amount, and the figure established when the property passed to her was already above the line. We obtained the estate accounts and the valuation used at the transfer, fixed the cost and the date, and tested each year from then onwards. The engagement produced the supporting estate documents, a cost schedule running from the year of inheritance, and statements filed for the years the holding had been held.
Income declared for years while the property statement was never filed
A client had declared foreign interest and dividends on every return for many years running. The income was right and the tax had been paid. Nothing in that process asks what the underlying holdings cost, so the statement had never been considered. We worked back from the income to the holdings, priced each at its cost amount, and identified the years in which the aggregate was over the line. The engagement produced a chronology of holdings and costs, a filed set of statements for the affected years, and a note of how each cost figure was arrived at.
Cost reconstruction for shares bought monthly through an overseas plan
A client had acquired shares through an employer plan abroad in small monthly instalments over many years, at a different price and a different exchange rate each time. There was no single purchase to point to. We obtained the plan’s transaction history, converted each acquisition at its own date, and built a cumulative cost schedule that showed the month in which the aggregate crossed the line. The engagement produced the instalment-level computation, the year from which statements were required, and a maintained schedule for the years still to come.
A gift from a relative abroad with no paperwork at all
A client had been given a foreign holding by an uncle years earlier. There was no deed, no valuation and no correspondence, only a transfer on a register in another country. Establishing a cost amount meant working with what could be evidenced: the registry entry and its date, third-party records of value around that date, and a written statement of the basis adopted and why. The engagement produced a supported cost figure, the documents behind it, and a note on file so that the same basis is used in every later year rather than reopened.
Holdings sold part way through a run of reporting years
A client had reported foreign property for several years, then disposed of the largest holding mid-year and kept filing the statement on the assumption that once in, always in. The test is applied to each year on its own facts. We rebuilt the aggregate cost for every year in the sequence, identified the first year in which it fell below the line, and the later year in which a fresh purchase brought him back over it. The engagement produced a year-by-year cost schedule and a clear record of which years required a statement.
A Residency Determination Review After Leaving the Country
Residence is decided on ties, not on a form, and the review asks for evidence of every one of them. The file assembles the ties that were severed and the ones that remained, and answers the questionnaire against the treaty rather than around it.
Read how this one runsTwo Passports, Two Returns, One Income
Dual citizenship does not let you choose which country taxes you. The work is establishing residence, applying the treaty article that governs each income type, and preparing both returns from one set of figures so they agree line for line.
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
Asked next about T1135
Yes, if the cost test is met. The statement reports what you hold rather than what it earned, so a loss-making year, a dormant holding and a property that has never produced a cent are all still reportable. Nothing here depends on tax being payable. That is what makes the exposure awkward: the income position can be entirely correct — declared, taxed, nothing owing — and the statement that lists the holdings can still be missing for every year they were held. If you are checking past years, work from the holdings you owned rather than from the income slips you received.
Not from what you paid, because you paid nothing. Cost amount is a tax figure rather than a purchase price, and for property that came to you rather than being bought it has to be established from the documents surrounding the transfer: the estate accounts, the valuation used when the property passed, the date it became yours and the exchange rate applying then. Ask for that paperwork early. Executors abroad wind estates up and stop answering letters, and reconstructing a figure years afterwards from local land or share records is slower and less convincing than obtaining it while the estate is still open.
The test is applied year by year, so the answer can change without your holdings changing character. Buying adds to the aggregate cost, selling takes cost out of it, and the statement follows: a run of filing years can be interrupted by one in which a large holding was disposed of, and a quiet year can pull you back in when something is acquired. Do not assume that because last year’s answer was no, this year’s is too, or the other way round. Keep a running cost schedule of the foreign holdings and test it each year. It is a short check once the schedule exists.
Establish the years before you file anything. The penalties in this area attach per statement and per year, so the size of the problem is set by how many years the test was actually met in — which is a cost computation rather than a guess, and often fewer years than the client fears. The order of work is: build the cost schedule, identify the years over the line, assemble the supporting documents, then decide how to bring those years forward, then file. Filing a stack first and explaining later removes a choice that is worth having. If a letter has already arrived, start with what it asks for.
Not by itself. The aggregate is built from cost amounts expressed in Canadian dollars, and a cost is fixed when the property is acquired and converted at that point. Later movements in the currency, like later movements in the market, change what the holding is worth rather than what it cost. What does move the aggregate is activity: acquiring, disposing, or acquiring in a currency that happens to be expensive on the day. This is another reason the running cost schedule is worth keeping — it turns the annual test into adding up recorded figures rather than re-reading statements each spring.
The T1135 is Canada's foreign income verification statement, filed by a resident whose specified foreign property exceeds the reporting threshold measured on cost, not market value. It is an information return, so it is required on the facts whether or not the property produced income or tax. Its penalties run per year and are not proportionate to tax owing, which is why missed years are dealt with as a package rather than one at a time. See T1135.
You claim relief once, in the right country, in the right order. Usually the source country taxes first, the residence country then gives a credit for that tax against its own charge on the same income, and a treaty caps the source-country rate. Getting the order wrong is what produces a double charge you then have to unwind. The mechanism differs by income type, which is why we map the whole position before filing either return. See how to avoid double taxation.



